Notices. Proposed rule
26,924 words·~122 min read·
/register/2006/10/11/06-8591·A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P 71 196 Wednesday, October 11, 2006 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 7 CFR Parts 305 and 318 [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0027] RIN 0579-AC15 Interstate Movement of Fruits and Vegetables From Hawaii AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: We are proposing to remove vapor heat treatment as an approved treatment for bell pepper, eggplant, Italian squash, and tomato moved interstate from Hawaii.
This action is necessary because these four commodities can serve as hosts for the solanum fruit fly, which has been detected in Hawaii. Vapor heat treatment is not an approved treatment for that pest. We are also proposing to provide for the use of irradiation as an approved treatment for all *Capsicum* spp. (peppers) and *Curcurbita* spp. (squash) moved interstate from Hawaii. This action would relieve unnecessary restrictions on the interstate movement of peppers and squash and allow a greater variety of *Capsicum* spp. and *Curcurbita* spp. to be moved interstate from Hawaii.
DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before December 11, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select APHIS-2006-0027 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically.
Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period, is available through the site's “User Tips” link. • Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0027, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No.
APHIS-2006-0027. *Reading Room:* You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call
(202)690-2817 before coming. *Other Information:* Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David B. Lamb, Import Specialist, Commodity Import Analysis and Operations, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236;
(301)734-8758. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Hawaiian fruits and vegetables regulations, contained in 7 CFR 318.13 through 318.13-17 (referred to below as the regulations), govern, among other things, the interstate movement of fruits and vegetables from Hawaii. Regulation is necessary to prevent the spread of dangerous plant diseases and pests that occur in Hawaii. Some fruits and vegetables regulated under the Hawaiian fruits and vegetables regulations are allowed to move interstate if they are treated with an approved treatment for certain plant pests. Lists of approved treatments for these fruits and vegetables and requirements for conducting these treatments are contained in 7 CFR part 305. Four of the fruits and vegetables that are allowed to move interstate from Hawaii if treated with an approved treatment are bell pepper, eggplant, Italian squash, and tomato. The treatments approved for these commodities, as listed in the table in § 305.2(h)(2)(ii), include the vapor heat treatments numbered VH T106-b-1 (for bell peppers), VH T106-b-2 (for eggplant), VH T106-b-5 and VH T106-b-7 (for tomato), and VH T106-b-6 (for Italian squash). Despite their differing numbers, these treatment numbers all refer to the same treatment schedule, which is described in § 305.24(c). These commodities may also be treated with irradiation in accordance with § 305.34, which sets out requirements for the use of irradiation as a treatment for fruits and vegetables moved interstate from Hawaii. Both the vapor heat treatment and the irradiation treatment are approved to neutralize the Mediterranean fruit fly ( *Ceratitis capitata* ), the Oriental fruit fly ( *Bactrocera dorsalis* ), and the melon fruit fly ( *Bactrocera curcurbitae* ). These fruit flies are present in Hawaii, and these four commodities can serve as hosts for them. An additional species of fruit fly has been detected in Hawaii, the solanum fruit fly ( *Bactrocera latifrons* ). 1 Bell peppers, eggplant, Italian squash, and tomatoes can all serve as hosts for this fruit fly. Because limited research has been done regarding the effectiveness of the vapor heat treatment schedule described in § 305.24(c) at neutralizing solanum fruit fly, this treatment is not approved to treat for solanum fruit fly. Therefore, we are proposing to remove vapor heat treatment as an approved treatment for bell pepper, eggplant, tomato, and Italian squash. We would accomplish this by removing the respective vapor heat treatment numbers for these commodities from their entries in § 305.2(h)(2)(ii). 1 See Liquido NJ, Harris EJ, and Dekker LA. “Ecology of *Bactrocera latifrons* (Diptera: Tephritidae) Populations: Host Plants, Natural Enemies, Distribution, and Abundance,” *Annals of the Entomological Society of America* , 87(1):71-85, 1994. We have also determined that the four fruit flies named above—the Mediterranean fruit fly, the Oriental fruit fly, the melon fruit fly, and the solanum fruit fly—are the only pests for which treatment should be required for the interstate movement of all species of the genus *Capsicum* (peppers), not just the bell pepper, and all species of the genus *Curcurbita* (squash), not just the Italian squash. Like the Mediterranean fruit fly, the Oriental fruit fly, and the melon fruit fly, the solanum fruit fly is a member of the family Tephritidae. We have previously determined that an irradiation dose of 150 gray is sufficient to neutralize all fruit flies of the family Tephritidae. (For more information on this determination, see the final rule published in the **Federal Register** on January 27, 2006 [Docket No. 03-077-2, 71 FR 4451-4464].) Therefore, we are proposing to add irradiation as an approved treatment for *Capsicum* spp. and Curcurbita spp. moved interstate from Hawaii. To accomplish this change, we would make the following amendments in 7 CFR parts 305 and 318: • In paragraph
(b)of § 318.13-4b, we would add “ *Capsicum* spp. (peppers)” and “ *Curcurbita* spp. (squash)” to the list of commodities that are eligible for interstate movement from Hawaii if, prior to interstate movement, they are inspected for plant pests by an inspector and are then treated for plant pests under the supervision of an inspector in accordance with a treatment prescribed in 7 CFR part 305. • In § 318.13-4f, which lists fruits and vegetables from Hawaii for which irradiation in accordance with § 305.34 is an approved treatment, we would add “ *Capsicum* spp. (peppers)” and “ *Curcurbita* spp. (squash)” to that list. • In § 305.34(a)(1), in the table that lists fruits and vegetables from Hawaii for which irradiation is an approved treatment and the irradiation dose that is approved for each commodity, we would add entries for “ *Capsicum* spp. (peppers)” and “ *Curcurbita* spp. (squash)” and indicate that a dose of 150 gray is approved for their treatment. • In § 305.2(h)(2)(ii), we would add entries in the table for “ *Capsicum* spp. (peppers)” and “ *Curcurbita* spp. (squash).” These entries would list irradiation as an approved treatment for commodities of these genera. They would also indicate that irradiation would be approved to treat all fruit flies of the family Tephritidae that are associated with these commodities. Indicating that the treatment is approved for all fruit flies of the family Tephritidae would mean that we would not have to update the regulations in the event that we discover that another fruit fly of that family is associated with one of these genera. In each of these locations, we would remove the separate entries for “bell pepper” and “Italian squash.” Irradiation is already an approved treatment for eggplant and tomato in § 305.2(h)(2)(ii). We would update the entries for these commodities in § 305.2(h)(2)(ii) by indicating that irradiation would be approved to treat all fruit flies of the family Tephritidae associated with these commodities. Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This proposed rule is in response to a species of fruit fly that has been detected in Hawaii, the solanum fruit fly ( *Bactrocera latifrons* ). Bell peppers, eggplant, Italian squash, and tomatoes are the four commodities for which vapor heat treatment is an approved treatment that are affected by the solanum fruit fly. Because limited research has been done regarding the effectiveness of vapor heat treatment at neutralizing solanum fruit fly, APHIS is proposing to remove vapor heat treatment from the list of approved treatments for bell peppers, eggplant, Italian squash, and tomatoes moved interstate from Hawaii. While vapor heat treatment would no longer be an approved treatment, irradiation is an approved treatment for the interstate movement of bell peppers and Italian squash from Hawaii. We are proposing to amend the regulations to approve irradiation as a treatment for all species of the genus *Capsicum* (peppers), not just bell peppers, and all species of the genus *Curcurbita* (squash), not just the Italian squash. APHIS has previously determined that an irradiation dose of 150 gray is sufficient to neutralize all fruit flies that affect *Capsicum* spp. and *Curcurbita* spp. in Hawaii, including the solanum fruit fly. Approximately $15.4 million worth of eggplant, green peppers, Italian squash, Oriental squash, and tomatoes were produced in the State of Hawaii in 2004, amounting to 52 million pounds (table 1). However, none of the eggplant, green peppers, Italian squash, or tomatoes produced in Hawaii in 2004 was moved interstate to the U.S. mainland. According to the Hawaii Department of Agriculture, none of these commodities has been moved interstate from Hawaii to the U.S. mainland within the last 2 years. Table 1.—Production and Value of Hawaiian Eggplant, Peppers, Squash, and Tomatoes, 2004 Commodity Quantity
(lb)Value Eggplant 1,050,000 $809,000 Peppers (Green) 3,200,000 2,208,000 Squash (Italian, Oriental) 2,350,000 1,263,000 Tomatoes 16,800,000 11,088,000 Total 52,200,000 15,368,000 Source: USDA, Hawaii Agricultural Statistics, 2006. The proposed rule would continue to give Hawaiian entities the opportunity to move *Capsicum* spp. and *Curcurbita* spp. interstate. While vapor heat treatment would no longer be an approved treatment for bell peppers and Italian squash, irradiation would become an approved treatment for all *Capsicum* spp. and *Curcurbita* spp. Irradiation would continue to be an approved treatment for eggplant and tomatoes as well. Accordingly, we do not expect that this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule is necessary to safeguard the U.S. mainland from the introduction of solanum fruit fly ( *Bactrocera latifrons* ). Because in recent years eggplant, peppers, squash, and tomatoes have not been moved interstate from Hawaii, the rule is not expected to have a significant impact on small or large entities. Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Executive Order 12372 This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.) Executive Order 12988 This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is adopted:
(1)All State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule will be preempted;
(2)no retroactive effect will be given to this rule; and
(3)administrative proceedings will not be required before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule. Paperwork Reduction Act This proposed rule contains no new information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). Lists of Subjects 7 CFR Part 305 Irradiation, Phytosanitary treatment, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 7 CFR Part 318 Cotton, Cottonseeds, Fruits, Guam, Hawaii, Plant diseases and pests, Puerto Rico, Quarantine, Transportation, Vegetables, Virgin Islands. Accordingly, we propose to amend 7 CFR parts 305 and 318 to read as follows: PART 305—PHYTOSANITARY TREATMENTS 1. The authority citation for part 305 would continue to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. 2. In § 305.2, in the table in paragraph (h)(2)(ii), the entry for Hawaii would be amended as follows: a. By removing the entries for “Bell pepper” and “Squash, Italian”. b. By adding, in alphabetical order, entries for “ *Capsicum* spp. (peppers)” and “ *Curcurbita* spp. (squash)” to read as set forth below. c. By revising the entries for “Eggplant” and “Tomato” to read as set forth below. § 305.2 Approved treatments.
(h)* * *
(2)* * *
(ii)* * * Location Commodity Pest Treatment schedule * * * * * * * Hawaii * * * * * * * *Capsicum* spp. (peppers) Fruit flies of the family Tephritidae IR. * * * * * * * *Curcurbita* spp. (squash) Fruit flies of the family Tephritidae IR. * * * * * * * Eggplant Fruit flies of the family Tephritidae IR. * * * * * * * Tomato Fruit flies of the family Tephritidae IR. *Ceratitis capitata* MB T101-c-3. * * * * * * * 3. In § 305.34, in paragraph (a)(1), the table would be amended as follows: a. By removing the entries for “Bell pepper” and “Italian squash”. b. By adding, in alphabetical order, entries for “ *Capsicum* spp. (peppers)” and “ *Curcurbita* spp. (squash)” to read as set forth below. § 305.34 Irradiation treatment of certain fruits and vegetables from Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
(a)* * *
(1)* * * Irradiation for plant pests in Hawaiian fruits and vegetables Commodity Dose
(gray)* * * * * *Capsicum* spp. (peppers) 150 * * * * * *Curcurbita* spp. (squash) 50 * * * * * PART 318—HAWAIIAN AND TERRITORIAL QUARANTINE NOTICES 4. The authority citation for part 318 would continue to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. § 318.13-4b [Amended] 5. In § 318.13-4b, paragraph
(b)would be amended as follows: a. By removing the words “bell peppers” and adding the words “ *Capsicum* spp. (peppers)” in their place. b. By adding the words “ *Curcurbita* spp. (squash),” after the word “carambolas,”. c. By removing the words “Italian squash,”. § 318.13-4f [Amended] 6. Section 318.13-4f would be amended as follows: a. By removing the words “bell pepper” and adding the words “ *Capsicum* spp. (peppers)” in their place. b. By adding the words “ *Curcurbita* spp. (squash),” after the word “carambola,”. c. By removing the words “Italian squash,”. Done in Washington, DC, this 4th day of October 2006. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E6-16754 Filed 10-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 300 [REG-148576-05] RIN 1545-BF69 User Fees for Processing Installment Agreements; Hearing Cancellation AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service, Treasury. ACTION: Cancellation of notice of public hearing on proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: This document cancels a public hearing on proposed regulations under section 300 of the Internal Revenue Code relating to user fees for installment agreements. DATES: The public hearing, originally scheduled for October 17, 2006, at 10 a.m. is cancelled. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Banks of the Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration), at
(202)622-0392 (not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing that appeared in the **Federal Register** on Wednesday, August 30, 2006 (71 FR 51538), announced that a public hearing was scheduled for October 17, 2006, at 10 a.m. in the Auditorium, Internal Revenue Service, New Carrollton Building, 5000 Ellin Road, Lanham, MD 20706. The subject of the public hearing is under section 300 of the Internal Revenue Code. The public comment period for these regulations expired on September 29, 2006. The notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing instructed those interested in testifying at the public hearing to submit a request to speak and an outline of the topics to be addressed. As of Monday, October 2, 2006, no one has requested to speak. Therefore, the public hearing scheduled for October 17, 2006, is cancelled. Guy R. Traynor, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration). [FR Doc. E6-16718 Filed 10-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service 36 CFR Chapter I Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee for Dog Management at Golden Gate National Recreation Area ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given, in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770, 5 U.S.C. App 1, section 10), of the sixth meeting of the Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee for Dog Management at Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA). DATES: The Committee will meet on Wednesday, November 8, 2006 in the Conference Center at Fort Mason Center in San Francisco. The meeting will begin at 3 p.m., and is open to the public. Although the Committee may modify its agenda during the course of its work, the proposed agenda for this meeting is as follows: Agenda review, review and adopt September 21, 2006 meeting summary, update on activities since last meeting, NEPA update, report on and discussion of technical subcommittee meeting #3, next steps, public comment. The Committee provides for a public comment period during the meeting; written comments may also be sent to: Superintendent, GGNRA, Ft. Mason, Bldg. 201, San Francisco, CA 94123, Attn: Negotiated Rulemaking. To request a sign language interpreter, please call the Park TDD line
(415)556-2766, at least a week in advance of the meeting. Please note that Federal regulations prohibit pets in public buildings, with the exception of service animals. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Go to the *http://www.parkplanning.nps.gov/goga* and select *Negotiated Rulemaking for Dog Management at GGNRA* or call the project information line at 415-561-4728. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Committee was established pursuant to the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990 (5 U.S.C. 561-570) to consider developing a special regulation for dogwalking at GGNRA. Dated: October 3, 2006. Bernard C. Fagan, Acting Chief, Office of Policy. [FR Doc. E6-16745 Filed 10-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-FN-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2005-AL-0004-200619b; FRL-8229-7] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Alabama: Volatile Organic Compounds AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing approval of revisions to the Alabama State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by the Alabama Department of Environmental Management
(ADEM)on November 18, 2005. The revisions include modifications to Alabama's Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOCs)rules found at Alabama Administrative Code
(AAC)Chapter 335-3-1. ADEM is taking an action that was similarly approved by EPA on November 29, 2004 (69 FR 69298). The revision adds several compounds to the list of compounds excluded from the definition of VOC on the basis that they make a negligible contribution to ozone formation. This proposed action is being taken pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). DATES: Written comments must be received on or before November 13, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by mail to: Stacy DiFrank, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, GA 30303-8960. Comments may also be submitted electronically, or through hand delivery/courier. Please follow the detailed instructions described in the direct final rule, ADDRESSES section which is published in the Rules Section of this **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stacy DiFrank, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, GA 30303-8960. The telephone number is
(404)562-9042. Ms. DiFrank can also be reached via electronic mail at *difrank.stacy@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information, see the direct final rule which is published in the Rules Section of this **Federal Register** . Dated: September 18, 2006. A. Stanley Meiburg, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. [FR Doc. E6-16810 Filed 10-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 174 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0642; FRL-8095-2] Plant-Incorporated Protectants Derived from a Plant Viral Coat Protein Gene (PVCP-PIPs); Notification to the Secretary of Agriculture AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notification to the Secretary of Agriculture. SUMMARY: This document notifies the public that the Administrator of EPA has forwarded to the Secretary of Agriculture a draft proposed rule as required by section 25(a) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). As described in the Agency's semi-annual Regulatory Agenda, the draft proposed rule would add certain plant-incorporated protectants based on viral coat protein genes (PVCP-PIPs) to its plant-incorporated protectants exemptions at 40 CFR part 174. Substances that plants produce for protection against pests and the genetic material necessary to produce them are pesticides under FIFRA if humans intend these substances to “prevent, repel or mitigate any pest.” ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification
(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0642. All documents in the docket are listed on the regulations.gov web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP)Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is
(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom McClintock, Hazard Assessment Coordination and Policy Division (7202M), Office of Science Coordination and Policy, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington DC 20460-0001; telephone number: 202-564-8488; e-mail address: *mcclintock.tom@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general. It simply announces the submission of a draft proposed rule to the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA)and does not otherwise affect any specific entities. This action may, however, be of particular interest to people or companies involved with agricultural biotechnology that may develop and market plant-incorporated protectants. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be interested in this action. If you have any questions regarding this action, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document and Other Related Information? In addition to using regulations.gov, you may access this **Federal Register** document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ **Federal Register** ” listings at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . II. What Action is EPA Taking? Section 25(a)(2) of FIFRA requires the Administrator to provide the Secretary of Agriculture with a copy of any proposed regulation at least 60 days before signing it for publication in the **Federal Register** . The draft proposed rule is not available to the public until after it has been signed by EPA. If the Secretary comments in writing regarding the draft proposed rule within 30 days after receiving it, the Administrator shall include the comments of the Secretary and the Administrator's response to those comments in the proposed rule when published in the **Federal Register** . If the Secretary does not comment in writing within 30 days after receiving the draft proposed rule, the Administrator may sign the proposed regulation for publication in the **Federal Register** anytime after the 30-day period not withstanding the foregoing 60-day time requirement. III. Do Any Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Apply to this Notification? No. This document is not a proposed rule, it is merely a notification of submission to the Secretary of Agriculture. As such, none of the regulatory assessment requirements apply to this document. List of Subjects in Part 174 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Pesticides and pests. Dated: October 2, 2006. Clifford J. Gabriel Director, Office of Science Coordination and Policy. [FR Doc. E6-16751 Filed 10-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Railroad Administration 49 CFR Part 211 [Docket No. 2006-24141, Notice No. 1] RIN 2130-AB77 Rules of Practice: Proposed Direct Final Rulemaking Procedures AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: FRA is proposing direct final rulemaking procedures to expedite the processing of noncontroversial regulatory changes to which no adverse comment is anticipated. Under the proposed procedures, FRA could choose to make routine or otherwise noncontroversial changes in a direct final rule which would become effective a specified number of days after its publication in the **Federal Register** , provided that no written adverse comment, or no request for a public hearing, was received before the rule's scheduled effective date. FRA would not use direct final rulemaking for complex or controversial matters. DATES: Written comments must be received by December 11, 2006. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent possible without incurring additional expense or delay. FRA anticipates being able to resolve this rulemaking without a public, oral hearing. However, if FRA receives a specific request for a public, oral hearing prior to November 13, 2006, one will be scheduled and FRA will publish a supplemental notice in the **Federal Register** to inform interested parties of the date, time, and location of any such hearing. ADDRESSES: *Comments:* Comments related to Docket No. 2006-24141, may be submitted by any of the following methods: • *Web site: http://dms.dot.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site. • *Fax:* 202-493-2251. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-001. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. *Instructions:* All submissions must include the agency name and docket number or Regulatory Identification Number
(RIN)for this rulemaking. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to *http://dms.dot.gov* including any personal information. Please see the Privacy Act heading in the “ SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ” section of this document for Privacy Act information related to any submitted comments or materials. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://dms.dot.gov* at any time or to PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia V. Sun, Trial Attorney, Mail Stop 10, Federal Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20005 [telephone:
(202)493-6038]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On January 30, 2004, the Office of the Secretary of Transportation
(OST)published a final rule adopting direct final rulemaking procedures intended to expedite the rulemaking process for noncontroversial rules. The rule published by OST applies only to regulations issued by the Office of the Secretary of Transportation and does not apply to the various operating administrations within DOT. By using direct final rulemaking, OST can reduce the time necessary to develop, review, clear and publish a rule to which no adverse public comment is anticipated by eliminating the need to publish separate proposed and final rules (69 FR 4455). In this notice, FRA proposes to amend its Rules of Practice (49 CFR Part 211) to adopt similar direct final rulemaking procedures to promulgate specified categories of rules it does not expect to be controversial and that are unlikely to result in adverse comments. Many agencies have adopted direct final rulemaking procedures, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Agriculture. For example, in 2003, the Department of Energy issued a direct final rule amending its test procedures for measuring the energy consumption of clothes washers (October 31, 2003, 68 FR 62197), and last year, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued a direct final rule to reinstate its original roll-over protective structures standards for the construction and agriculture industries (December 29, 2005, 70 FR 76795). The Direct Final Rulemaking Process As stated above, the use of direct final rulemaking would allow FRA to eliminate an unnecessary second round of internal review and clearance, as well as public review, for noncontroversial proposed rules. FRA would employ the direct final rulemaking process for a particular rule if, for example, similar rules had been previously proposed and published without receiving adverse comment. FRA believes that direct final rulemaking would be appropriate for noncontroversial rules, including such rules that:
(1)Affect internal procedures of the Federal Railroad Administration, such as filing requirements and rules governing inspection and copying of documents,
(2)are nonsubstantive clarifications or corrections to existing rules;
(3)update existing forms; and
(4)make minor changes in the substantive rules regarding statistics and reporting requirements, such as a lessening of the reporting frequency (for example, from monthly to quarterly) or elimination of a type of data that no longer needs to be collected by FRA. After determining that a rule would be appropriate for direct final rulemaking, FRA would publish the rule in the final rule section of the **Federal Register** . In each direct final rule document, the “action” would be captioned “direct final rule” and would include language in the summary and preamble informing interested parties of their right to comment and their right to request an oral hearing, if such opportunity is required. The direct final rule notice would advise the public that FRA anticipates no adverse comment to the rule and that the rule would become effective a specified number of days after the date of publication unless FRA received written adverse comment or a request for an oral hearing (if such opportunity is required by statute) within the specified comment period. An “adverse” comment would be one that is critical of the rule, one that suggests that the rule should not be adopted, or one that suggests that a change should be made in the rule. FRA would not consider a comment submitted in support of the rule, or a request for clarification of the rule, to be adverse. FRA would provide sufficient comment time to allow interested parties to determine whether they wish or need to submit adverse comments, and would answer any requests for clarification while the comment period was running. If FRA received no written adverse comment or request for oral hearing within the comment period, FRA would publish another notice in the **Federal Register** indicating that no adverse comment had been received and confirming that the rule would become effective on the specified date. If, however, FRA received the timely submission of an adverse comment or notice of intent to submit adverse comment, FRA would stop the direct final rulemaking process and withdraw the direct final rule by publishing a notice in the final rule section of the **Federal Register** . If FRA decided that the rulemaking remained necessary, FRA would recommence the rulemaking under its standard rulemaking procedures by publishing a notice proposing the rule in the proposed rules section of the **Federal Register** . The proposed rule would provide for a new public comment period. FRA believes that the additional time and effort required to withdraw the direct final rule and issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking would be an incentive for FRA to act conservatively in evaluating whether to use the direct final rulemaking process for a particular rule. As stated above, FRA would not use direct final rulemaking for complex or potentially controversial matters. Regulatory Analyses and Notices FRA has determined that this action is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 or under the Department's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. There are no costs associated with the proposed rule. There would be some cost savings in **Federal Register** publication costs and efficiencies for the public and FRA personnel in eliminating duplicative reviews. FRA certifies that this rule, if adopted, would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. FRA does not believe that there would be sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. Paperwork Reduction Act The proposed rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 FRA has determined that the requirements of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply to this rulemaking. List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 211 Administrative practice and procedure, Rules of practice. In consideration of the foregoing, FRA proposes to amend 49 CFR part 211 as follows: PART 211—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 211 would continue to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20114, 20306, 20502-20504, and 49 CFR 1.49. 2. In part 211, Subpart B—Rulemaking Procedures, would be amended by adding a new § 211.33, Procedures for direct final rulemaking, as follows: § 211.33 Procedures for direct final rulemaking.
(a)Rules that the Administrator judges to be noncontroversial and unlikely to result in adverse public comment may be published in the final rule section of the **Federal Register** as direct final rules. These include noncontroversial rules that:
(1)Affect internal procedures of the Federal Railroad Administration, such as filing requirements and rules governing inspection and copying of documents,
(2)Are nonsubstantive clarifications or corrections to existing rules,
(3)Update existing forms, and
(4)Make minor changes in the substantive rules regarding statistics and reporting requirements.
(b)The **Federal Register** document will state that any adverse comment or notice of intent to submit adverse comment must be received in writing by the Federal Railroad Administration within the specified time after the date of publication and that, if no written adverse comment or request for oral hearing (if such opportunity is required by statute) is received, the rule will become effective a specified number of days after the date of publication.
(c)If no adverse comment or request for oral hearing is received by the Federal Railroad Administration within the specified time of publication in the **Federal Register** , the Federal Railroad Administration will publish a notice in the **Federal Register** indicating that no adverse comment was received and confirming that the rule will become effective on the date that was indicated in the direct final rule.
(d)If the Federal Railroad Administration receives any written adverse comment or request for oral hearing within the specified time of publication in the **Federal Register** , a notice withdrawing the direct final rule will be published in the final rule section of the **Federal Register** and, if the Federal Railroad Administration decides a rulemaking is warranted, a notice of proposed rulemaking will be published in the proposed rule section of the **Federal Register** .
(e)An “adverse” comment for the purpose of this subpart means any comment that the Federal Railroad Administration determines is critical of the rule, suggests that the rule should not be adopted, or suggests a change that should be made in the rule. Issued in Washington, DC, on September 29, 2006. Joseph H. Boardman, Administrator. [FR Doc. E6-16825 Filed 10-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-06-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 RIN 1018-AV01 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Withdrawal of the Proposed Rule To List the Cow Head Tui Chub ( Gila bicolor vaccaceps ) as Endangered AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have determined that the proposed listing of the Cow Head tui chub ( *Gila bicolor vaccaceps* ) as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), is not warranted, and we therefore withdraw our March 30, 1998, proposed rule (63 FR 15152-15158). We have made this determination because the threats to the species identified in the March 30, 1998, proposed rule are not significant, and currently available data do not indicate that the threats to the species, as analyzed under the five listing factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act, are likely to endanger the species in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. ADDRESSES: Supporting documentation for this action is available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Klamath Falls Fish and Wildlife Office, 6610 Washburn Way, Klamath Falls, OR 97603. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Curt Mullis, Field Supervisor, at the above address (telephone, 541-885-8481, or facsimile, 541-885-7837). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Cow Head tui chub, *Gila* ( *Siphateles* ) *bicolor vaccaceps* , is a small fish in the minnow family Cyprinidae. It was first recognized as a distinct subspecies in 1939, and was later named and formally described in 1980 (Bills and Bond 1980, pp. 320-322). Although it was referred to as the Cowhead Lake tui chub in the March 30, 1998, proposed listing (63 FR 15152), we now conform to the accepted geographical spelling of Cow Head as two words and use the shorter name, Cow Head tui chub, for reasons discussed in Reid (2006b, pp. 1-6). It is distinguished from other tui chubs primarily by the number and form of its gill rakers (bony projections in the gills), as well as other characteristics, such as fin and scale counts, and the shape of its fins and head (Bills and Bond 1980, pp. 320-322). Like other tui chubs, its coloration is generally silver, except for a dark lateral stripe and dark speckles scattered on the cheek, operculum (area behind the eye), and lower body. The known range of the Cow Head tui chub is limited to the Cow Head Basin in extreme northeastern California and northwestern Nevada (Reid 2006a, pp. 15-19). The Cow Head Basin is relatively small (10,400 hectares (ha); 25,700 acres) and drains north into the Warner Basin of Oregon through Cow Head Slough. Historically, the basin contained a shallow, marshy lake when sufficient water was available. Cow Head Lake was altered in the 1930s, following the extended drought of the 1920-30s, to allow drainage of the lake in the spring and to facilitate agricultural uses of the lakebed. Populations of Cow Head tui chub occupy all principal low gradient streams in the basin (Cow Head Slough and Barrel, West Barrel and Keno creeks) and a relatively large population still exists on the lakebed, where it is restricted to permanent water in drainage channels when the lake is dry (Scoppettone and Rissler 2006, pp. 108-109). Stream populations of Cow Head tui chub annually expand throughout most of the low gradient stream habitat in the basin during wet periods and contract as the summer progresses and streams dry up. Connectivity between stream populations of Cow Head tui chub is generally unobstructed during springtime flows, but during summer and fall, all populations are restricted to isolated perennial pools (Reid 2006a, p.19). Landownership in the Cow Head Basin is both private and Federal (U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM)). However, most perennial habitat of the chub is on private land (Reid 2006a, p. 10-11). Cow Head tui chubs generally occupy pool areas in streams and open water channels having dense aquatic vegetation (Homuth 2000, p. 6; Moyle 2002, p. 124; Reid 2006a, p. 20). They grow about 50 millimeters
(mm)(2 inches (in)) fork length (tip of nose to the fork in tail) during the first year and reach an average of 100 mm (4 in) at about 5 years of age, with larger individuals uncommon (Scoppettone and Rissler 2003, p. 5; Scoppettone and Rissler 2006, p. 110). The maximum recorded size for Cow Head tui chubs is 235 mm (9 in) (Scoppettone and Rissler 2006, p. 111). Although there is no specific information on the reproductive behavior of the Cow Head tui chub, spawning by most tui chubs usually takes place from late April to late June, beginning in their second to fourth year (Moyle 2002, pp. 124-125). Fecundity is relatively high, and a female of 100 mm (4 in) produces about 4,000 eggs over a series of spawning events. Tui chubs typically spawn in groups, with several males attending each female. Eggs adhere to plants, or the bottom, and hatch in about 3-6 days (Moyle 2002, pp. 124-125). Tui chubs in general evolved in the arid Great Basin where water bodies experience wide fluctuations in water conditions, and therefore they are highly tolerant of high alkalinity, high turbidity, and high temperatures (Moyle 2002, pp. 124-125). They also appear to tolerate relatively low levels of dissolved oxygen (Castleberry and Cech 1986, pp. 149-150; Moyle 2002, p. 124). While there have been no long-term diurnal studies of water quality in the Cow Head Basin, short-term surveys and measurements associated with distributional surveys in Cow Head streams and channels indicate that most water quality parameters are generally well within the documented tolerances of tui chubs, with the exception of localized low dissolved oxygen conditions near the bottom of desiccating pools and canals (Richey 1999, pp. 20-25; Homuth 2000, p. 6; Scoppettone and Rissler 2003, p. 6). There are no records of large fish die-offs caused by water quality in permanent pools or canals associated with the Basin, again indicating that water quality parameters are well within limits tolerated by tui chubs. Fish trapped in seasonal pools die as the season progresses and the pools dry up (Homuth 2000, p. 8), but this is not due to water quality. Previous Federal Actions On December 30, 1982, the Service published a revised notice of review for vertebrate wildlife in the **Federal Register** (47 FR 58454) designating the Cow Head tui chub as a category 2 candidate. At that time, the Service defined category 2 candidates as taxa for which information in the Service's possession indicated that a proposed listing rule was possibly appropriate, but for which sufficient data on biological vulnerability and threats were not available to support a proposed rule (45 FR 82481, December 15, 1980). The Service reclassified the Cow Head tui chub as a category 1 candidate in the November 21, 1991, notice of review (56 FR 58804). Category 1 candidate species were defined as “taxa for which the Service presently has sufficient information on hand to support the biological appropriateness of their being listed as endangered or threatened” (45 FR 82480, December 15, 1980). In the Candidate Notice of Review published on February 28, 1996 (61 FR 7595), the Service announced a revised list of candidate plant and animal taxa based on a single category for candidates that closely matched the previous definition of category 1 candidates. Specifically, the 1996 notice adopted a single category of candidates, defined as: “those species for which the Service has on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threat(s) to support issuance of a proposed rule to list but issuance of the proposed rule is precluded” (61 FR 7597). As a former category 1 candidate taxon, the Cow Head tui chub was included as a candidate in the February 28, 1996 (61 FR 7596), and September 19, 1997 (62 FR 49398), notices of review. On March 30, 1998, the Service published in the **Federal Register** a proposed rule to list the Cow Head tui chub as endangered (63 FR 15152). The Cow Head tui chub was proposed for listing based primarily on concerns about the apparent present and threatened destruction, modification, and curtailment of its habitat and range (particularly as related to dewatering of Cow Head Lake and livestock grazing), as well as other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence (particularly the introduction of pesticides into the drainage as a result of pest control activity, and vulnerability to random naturally occurring events that can pose risks associated to small, restricted populations) (63 FR 15152-15155). The proposed rule also stated that introduction of nonnative fish, game fish, or other nonnative tui chubs could harm the Cow Head Lake tui chub through increased competition, predation, and hybridization (63 FR 15154). The proposed rule had a 60-day public comment period, until May 29, 1998. On June 17, 1998, we reopened the comment period for an additional 65 days at the request of private citizens and organizations (63 FR 33033). The second comment period closed on August 3, 1998. On February 2, 2000, we opened a third comment period at the request of signatories of the conservation agreement (described below), to allow the Service to consider conservation measures in the conservation agreement; this comment period closed on February 16, 2000 (65 FR 4940). Conservation Agreement On October 22, 1999, stakeholders signed a conservation agreement (CA), including a conservation strategy, with the stated purpose of ensuring the long-term survival of the Cow Head tui chub (Service 1999, p. 2). Signatories included private landowners of Cow Head Lake, Cow Head Slough, and the California reach of Barrel Creek (four owners, all CA signatories); principal permittees on BLM lands within the drainage; California and Modoc County Cattlemen's Associations; the California Farm Bureau Federation; the BLM (Surprise Field Office); and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). The two owners on West Barrel Creek and the single owner for perennial reaches of Barrel and Keno creeks (Nevada) were not original signatories to the CA, as chub populations in those areas were unknown at the time; however, these landowners have been supportive by providing access to meet the goals and objectives of the conservation strategy. The stated purpose of the conservation strategy is to identify specific procedures and strategies required for the long-term survival of the Cow Head tui chub. The strategy has two main objectives: Phase one—develop baseline data; and Phase two—use the baseline data to determine the most feasible conservation actions to implement the goals of the conservation strategy. Phase one included studies intended to increase our understanding of the species and its habitat. Most of the proposed actions in Phase one have been addressed or are part of ongoing projects. Phase two builds upon the information developed in Phase one, or by any future studies, to adaptively implement conservation and management actions to meet the goals of the conservation strategy. The general goals of actions implemented in Phase two (and their completion status) are:
(1)To establish, or confirm the current existence of, additional populations (completed);
(2)to create more stable habitat for those populations (in progress);
(3)to provide greater assurance of stability for the Cow Head tui chub population upstream of the pump in the lakebed channels (ongoing);
(4)to create, to the extent feasible, additional stable habitat in the area of historic Cow Head Lake upstream of the pump (under review); and
(5)to monitor, as appropriate, the status of Cow Head tui chub populations and effectiveness of conservation actions (ongoing). By signing the October 22, 1999, CA, the Service and other stakeholders in the Cow Head Lake watershed committed to actions and goals intended to ensure the long-term survival of the Cow Head tui chub by balancing current practices in the watershed with the long-term needs of the subspecies. As previously stated, we opened a third comment period on the proposed rule on February 2, 2000, by request of signatories to the CA, so that the Service could also consider the conservation measures of the CA when making a final determination (65 FR 4940). The third comment period closed on February 16, 2000. Summary of Public Comments During the comment period for the March 30, 1998, proposed rule, we received 13 responses from local government, local organizations, and private individuals. Of those responses, none provided new information pertinent to the proposed listing. Six responses expressed views against the listing, one implied general support of the listing, and six were requests for a 60-day extension. There were no requests for a public hearing. On June 17, 1998, the Service reopened the comment period on the proposed rule in response to requests from private organizations and private citizens (63 FR 33033). During the second comment period, only one comment letter was received. It provided additional information on historical conditions, past and current management, and trends in riparian conditions. The commenter did not state a position relative to the appropriateness of the proposed listing. On February 2, 2000, we reopened the comment period on the proposed rule to allow consideration of the conservation agreement signed on October 22, 1999, and to solicit additional information on the biology, distribution, and status of the Cow Head tui chub (65 FR 4940). The reopening of comment period was in response to requests from signatories of the conservation agreement. During the third comment period, the Service received five responses from State and local governments and private individuals. Four responses were against the proposed listing, and one was in support. No new information pertinent to the proposed listing was obtained.
(1)*Comment:* One commenter felt that the Service could not demonstrate that this action has the purpose of interstate commerce, and thus the Service did not have the authority to apply the protection of the Act. *Our Response:* We disagree with this comment. The Service has the authority to protect all endangered species, including intrastate species or those with no direct commercial value in interstate commerce.
(2)*Comment:* One commenter stated that there is a deficiency in the data, asserting the Service lacks information about the historical range of the fish and evidence of endangerment across the species range, and thus cannot move forward with listing the species under the Act. *Our Response:* In the March 30, 1998, proposed rule (63 FR 15152), the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat and range was a factor considered to threaten the Cow Head tui chub. At that time, we stated that the diversion of water from Cow Head Lake had eliminated approximately 98 percent of the chub's historical range and that the dewatering was a threat to the species. Based on the information available, the chub was thought to be restricted to a very small portion of its historic range, occurring only in various pools along the southern portion of Cow Head Slough, and in the drainage channels on the bed of Cow Head Lake, for a total range of approximately 5.4 km (3.4 mi), with no additional populations known (for additional information see Factor A below). Since the proposed rule was published, the Service has gathered much more information about the species' range and habitat conditions (including information from Reid 2006a, 2006b). Current information, based on more complete basin-wide surveys, demonstrates that the Cow Head tui chub is more widely distributed than previously thought and maintains populations throughout all of its historical range, including in all streams and lakebed channels that would have offered suitable habitat in the past. We therefore recognize that the perceived reduction of historical range, and the related concern of dewatering that was believed to be the cause of the reduction in the range, was a function of incomplete information and that current information demonstrates that reduction of the historical range has not occurred and is not a threat to the Cow Head tui chub. Recognizing that this and other threats we identified in the March 30, 1998, proposed rule (63 FR 15152) either
(1)do not exist or
(2)have been eliminated or otherwise ameliorated, we have determined that the Cow Head tui chub does not meet the Act's definition of either a threatened or an endangered species. Consequently, we are withdrawing the proposal to list the species. For further information, please see the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section below.
(3)*Comment:* One commenter stated that Cow Head tui chub could live in highly eutrophic water and that this was not a threat as the Service had indicated in the March 30, 1998, proposed rule. *Our Response:* Eutrophic water conditions were not one of the substantial threats we identified in our proposed rule; however, we noted this condition as a subject of potential concern. As described in the background section of this notice, tui chubs in general evolved in the arid Great Basin and are highly tolerant of high alkalinity, high turbidity, and high temperatures (Moyle 2002, pp. 124-125). They also appear to tolerate relatively low dissolved oxygen levels in water (Castleberry and Cech 1986, pp. 149-150; Moyle 2002, p. 124). While there have been no long-term diurnal studies of water quality in the Cow Head Basin, short-term surveys and measurements associated with distributional surveys in the various Cow Head streams and channels indicate that most water quality parameters are generally well within the tolerances of tui chubs. Additionally, there are no records of large fish die-offs caused by water quality in the permanent pools or the canals associated with the Basin, again indicating that water quality parameters are well within limits tolerated by the chubs. Fish trapped in seasonal pools certainly die as the season progresses and the pools dry up (Homuth 2000, p. 8). We recognize that most water quality parameters collected within the range of the Cow Head tui chub since the 1998 proposed rule, with the exception of localized low dissolved oxygen conditions near the bottom of desiccating pools and canals, are generally well within the tolerances of tui chubs (Richey 1999, pp. 20-25; Homuth 2000, p. 6; Scoppettone and Rissler 2003, p. 6), and poor water quality is not a threat to the Cow Head tui chub. Considering that this and the other threats we identified in the March 30, 1998, proposed rule do not exist, or have been eliminated or otherwise ameliorated, we are withdrawing the proposal to list the species. For further information, please see the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section below.
(4)*Comment:* One commenter stated the Service had poorly articulated the threat from native wildlife, and the threat from future introductions of nonnative fish and disease was unlikely. *Our Response:* In the March 30, 1998, proposed rule (63 FR 15152), the introductions of a catastrophic disease or nonnative predatory fish were both recognized as potentially harmful to Cow Head tui chub, particularly due to the small estimated population size and confined known range of the chub at that time. However, this factor was not considered a principal threat to the chub. Since 1998, the Service has gathered additional information about the extent of predation and the likelihood of nonnative introduction and disease (Reid 2006a, p. 28; also see Factor C discussion, below). The Service notes that no disease or predator currently threatens the Cow Head tui chub and that the introduction and establishment of a disease or nonnative fish predator into the Cow Head Basin is unlikely. Were introduction and establishment of a disease or nonnative fish predator into the Cow Head Basin to occur, is not likely to threaten the chub with extinction, as explained below in our discussion of Factor C. We recognize that the potential threats to the tui chub from disease and introductions of nonnative predatory fish are both unlikely and minor. Considering that these and other threats we identified in the March 30, 1998, proposed rule (63 FR 15152) either
(1)do not exist or
(2)have been eliminated or otherwise ameliorated, we are withdrawing the proposal to list the species. For further information, please see the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section below.
(5)*Comment:* One commenter stated there were no current threats to the species; therefore the Service was incorrect in its determination that inadequacy of existing regulations to reduce risk was a threat to the species. *Our Response:* In the March 30, 1998, proposed rule, the Service found that there were no existing regulations to deal with the threats to the species described in the proposed rule (63 FR 15152). Since 1998, information developed about potential threats leads the Service to conclude that there are currently no recognized threats to the continued existence of the Cow Head tui chub; therefore additional regulatory mechanisms are unnecessary. Also, we now know that the Cow Head tui chub maintains populations throughout all of its historical range, and this has occurred in the context of the existing regulatory mechanisms. Therefore, we recognize that inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms is not a threat to the Cow Head tui chub. Considering that this and other threats we identified in the March 30, 1998, proposed rule (63 FR 15152) either
(1)do not exist or
(2)have been eliminated or otherwise ameliorated, we are withdrawing the proposal to list the species. More information on the topic of adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms can be found in Factor D discussion, below.
(6)*Comment:* One commenter stated that the Service offered no proof that pesticide programs were a threat to the species. *Our Response:* The concern over impacts of pesticides was based on the assumption that nearby agricultural activities used pesticides and that the Cow Head tui chub population had been reduced to a single, small population, with an extremely restricted range and no additional populations available for recolonization in the event of a localized extinction (63 FR 15152). Using new information gathered since 1998, the Service has found that the population is not as small as previously thought. (See Factor D discussion below.) Agricultural activities and land management in the Cow Head Basin are limited to hay production and grazing (Reid 2006a, p. 10). The only substantial use of pesticides is in the U.S. Department of Agriculture's grasshopper control program, which occurs only during occasional years when grasshopper outbreaks occur, and then it focuses on localized upland areas surrounding the lakebed that are used by grasshoppers for egg laying. Pesticides are not applied to aquatic habitat, and in the event of an accidental spill or application, the adverse effect would be localized, particularly because application typically occurs in late summer when flow is low and pool habitats are not connected (Reid 2006a p. 19; see also Factor E discussion below). We recognize that pesticide use is not a significant threat to the Cow Head tui chub. Considering that this and other threats we identified in the March 30, 1998, proposed rule (63 FR 15152) either
(1)do not exist or
(2)have been eliminated or otherwise ameliorated, we are withdrawing the proposal to list the species. For further information, please see the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section below.
(7)*Comment:* One commenter stated that the Service had no proof that the risks associated with small and restricted fish populations was a threat. *Our Response:* The vulnerabilities identified in the March 30, 1998, proposed rule (63 FR 15152) (possible excessively high death or low birth rates, deleterious effects of genetic drift and inbreeding, and sensitivity to localized stochastic events) were based on the assumption that the Cow Head tui chub had been reduced to a single, small population, with an extremely restricted range and no additional populations were available for recolonization in the event of a localized extinction. Using information gathered since 1998, we have found that the chub is not as reduced as previously thought. (See Factor D discussion, below.) Also, a recent genetic study of tui chubs found that the genetic diversity in the Cow Head tui chub is similar to other stream-resident chub populations, and there is no indication of genetic threats (Chen 2006, p. 46-48). The fact that the Cow Head tui chub is restricted in population size and distribution does not by itself pose a significant risk to the species. Considering that this and other threats we identified in the March 30, 1998, proposed rule (63 FR 15152 either
(1)do not exist or
(2)have been eliminated or otherwise ameliorated, we are withdrawing the proposal to list the species. For further information, please see the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section below.
(8)*Comment:* Six commenters requested a 60-day extension of the comment period. *Our Response:* In response to these requests, the Service reopened the comment period for 65 days.
(9)*Comment:* Two commenters stated that humans have influenced water movement in the Cow Head tui chub's range and this has benefited the chub by enhancing or protecting aquatic habitat. *Our Response:* We agree with the commenters that humans can provide benefits to aquatic species in a highly manipulated environment because of our desire to create permanent water sources. In the Cow Head basin, some areas of perennial habitat are maintained by water management structures and these structures can decrease the likelihood of nonnative fish getting into the area. (See discussions of Factors C and E, below.) Since 1998, we have investigated the effects of historical changes in water-flow patterns on the Cow Head tui chub's status. As a result of interest in the conservation agreement, we were able to work with local residents to develop a better understanding of water flow and management in the area, and have considered that information in our assessment of potential impacts to the chub. (See discussion of habitat under Factor A, below.) We no longer believe that water management is a current or potential threat. Considering that this and other threats we identified in the March 30, 1998, proposed rule (63 FR 15152) either
(1)do not exist or
(2)have been eliminated or otherwise ameliorated, we are withdrawing the proposal to list the species. For further information, please see the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section below.
(10)*Comment:* One commenter felt that the proposed listing was an attempt to take away private landowner's rights. *Our Response:* The commenter's concerns regarding the effects of listing on private property rights is no longer germane because we are withdrawing our 1998 proposal to list the Cow Head tui chub (63 FR 15152). However, the listing of a species under the Act, in and of itself, does not affect private lands and does not effect a taking of private property by the Federal government. Only if the landowner engages in an activity that is likely to take a listed fish or wildlife species, or an activity that requires Federal authorization or funding and may affect a listed species, do the Act's regulatory restrictions come into play. In those situations, the Act provides regulatory mechanisms under Sections 7 and 10 to enable such activities to proceed consistent with protection of the listed species.
(11)*Comment:* One commenter stated that the Cow Head tui chub should not be listed because the conservation agreement was in place. *Our Response:* We believe conservation agreements are important conservation tools, and this particular agreement was especially crucial for identifying information gaps and forming a basis for collaboration. By signing the conservation agreement, the Service and other stakeholders in the Cow Head Lake watershed committed to actions and goals intended to ensure the long-term survival of the chub by balancing current practices in the watershed with the long-term needs of the subspecies. Although we believe the Cow Head tui chub conservation agreement is important, listing decisions are made based on a thorough analysis of all substantial and foreseeable threats. Based on an analysis of all the factors, and the new information collected with the help of the conservation agreement, we no longer believe the Cow Head tui chub is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range or likely to become so in the foreseeable future; therefore we are withdrawing the March 30, 1998 proposal to list the chub (63 FR 15152).
(12)*Comment:* California Department of Fish and Game questioned whether the modification to landowner agreements would impact the implementation of the conservation agreement. *Our Response:* In a recent peer review of Reid (2006a), Randal C. Benthin, Senior Fishery Biologist at the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), wrote a letter to us confirming that the landowners have been working with management agencies to implement the conservation agreement, and he praised their commitment. We discussed this comment with Mr. Benthin, in a September 22, 2006 phone call, and he said the issue was satisfactorily addressed in the final conservation agreement. He further stated that CDFG had no further concerns.
(13)*Comment:* One commenter stated that the listing should be delayed so that additional populations could be established. The commenter felt that if the species were listed, the resulting section 7 consultation process would delay the establishment of additional populations. *Our Response:* We agree with the commenter that multiple populations are important for species conservation. In the case of the Cow Head tui chub at the time of the original listing proposal, we believed that the number of populations was quite small (63 FR 15152). Since the March 30, 1998, proposed rule was published, we determined that the number of populations is larger than originally thought. New surveys show the Cow Head tui chub maintains populations throughout all of its historical range in all streams and lakebed channels that would have offered suitable habitat in the past (Reid 2006a, p. 18). Therefore the chub is more widely distributed than previously thought. (See Factor A discussion, below.) We now recognize that the number of populations and relatively narrow range of the species are not threats to the Cow Head tui chub. Considering that this and other threats we identified in the March 30, 1998, proposed rule (63 FR 15152) either
(1)do not exist or
(2)have been eliminated or otherwise ameliorated, we are withdrawing the proposal to list the species. For further information, please see the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section below. Regarding the comment that listing the species and any resulting section 7 consultations would delay the establishment of additional populations, because we are withdrawing the proposal to list the Cow Head tui chub, this comment is no longer germane. Nevertheless, even if the species were listed, section 7 consultation would not have hampered efforts to establish additional populations. Section 7 consultation is a valuable tool to minimize adverse effects of Federal actions to listed species and, as such, provides benefits to species.
(14)*Comment:* One commenter offered several specific goals for conservation actions for the species, including establishment of additional populations, water management certainty, and protection of habitat from over-grazing. *Our Response:* We agree with the commenter that multiple populations and protection of habitat from threats are key to species conservation. In the case of the Cow Head tui chub, at the time of the original proposal, we believed that the number of populations was quite small and that there were threats to the quantity and quality of habitat (63 FR 15152). Since that time, we have focused on addressing these and other potential threats and obtaining additional information from various sources to clarify the status of the species ( *e.g.* , Reid 2006a). As a result, we have determined that the number of populations is larger than originally thought. We also looked carefully into the role that current and future water availability could have on the conservation of the species. As described in more detail under the discussions of Factors A and E below, the Cow Head tui chub evolved in a low-precipitation region and has survived numerous droughts including a severe 16-year drought early in the 20th century. We have also found that current water management is compatible with the conservation needs of the species and that there is a lack of evidence to suggest water management will substantially change in the foreseeable future. Furthermore, we have reached a similar conclusion regarding grazing management. As described under the discussion of Factor A below, the chub has coexisted with the current grazing management for decades, and we have no information that leads us to believe grazing management will substantially change in a manner that would adversely affect the species in the foreseeable future. We now recognize that water availability, water management, and grazing do not pose threats to the Cow Head tui chub. Considering that these and other threats we identified in the March 30, 1998, proposed rule (63 FR 15152) either
(1)do not exist or
(2)have been eliminated or otherwise ameliorated, we are withdrawing the proposal to list the species. For further information, please see the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section below.
(15)*Comment:* One commenter felt that conservation agreements fail to protect species adequately. *Our Response:* The Service believes conservation agreements
(CAs)can serve a valuable role in helping to conserve species, and we also recognize that they may have limitations, as suggested by this comment. In the specific case of the Cow Head tui chub, the CA enabled the Service get additional valuable information on the species' status on private lands, and it provided a means for stakeholders to take an active role in the conservation of the species. This withdrawal of the proposed rule to list the Cow Head tui chub is not based on anticipation of future improvements in the status of the species that we believe will occur as a result of the CA. Instead, this withdrawal is based on new information that demonstrates a lack of identified treats, as is described below in the discussions of Factors A-E; this new information was obtained in large measure through implementation of the CA. More discussion of this topic is found under the sections titled “Conservation Agreement” above and “Summary of Factors Affecting the Species” below. Conservation Review At the time the March 30, 1998, proposed rule was published (63 FR 15152), little information was available regarding the Cow Head tui chub. The CA has allowed us to obtain more extensive and accurate information on the Cow Head tui chub, including its distribution, population status, habitat use, and land management in the Cow Head basin. The CA has also resulted in the initiation of management activities by private and public stakeholders, which further secure the Cow Head tui chub and its habitat. In 2005, in order to make a final determination on the listing status of the Cow Head tui chub given this crucial new information, we arranged for an independent scientific review of the Cow Head tui chub to obtain a comprehensive synthesis of all available data pertinent to the conservation of the species, including clarification of the complicated history and management of the basin, evaluation of biological information regarding the species, and compilation of previous population and habitat surveys in the basin. The purpose of the review was to assemble all scientific and commercial information on the Cow Head tui chub, as well as to assimilate the collective knowledge of local landowners and managers. The review did not evaluate the status of the Cow Head tui chub under the Act, as that is the Service's ultimate responsibility. The principal author of the review is Dr. Stewart Reid, an independent biologist, who is a recognized expert in the native fishes of this region and who is familiar with the Cow Head Basin. The review was peer reviewed in May-June 2006 and made available to stakeholders to ensure its accuracy and completeness (see Peer Review section, below). The revised synthesis (Reid 2006a) and its supporting documentation reflect the most recent information regarding the Cow head tui chub; this information significantly informs our determination to withdraw our previous proposal to list this subspecies (63 FR 15152, March 30, 1998). Peer Review In accordance with our July 1, 1994, Interagency Cooperative Policy for Peer Review in Endangered Species Act Activities (59 FR 34270), we solicited the opinions of seven independent specialists. We provided the reviewers with the synthesis document (Reid 2006a) which contains new information, and a review of all available scientific, historical, and management information pertaining to the species. We specifically asked the reviewers to review the document for accuracy of the information, any missing information, and threats to the species not mentioned in the report. Reviewers were not asked to interpret the Act as it applies to this species or to make a recommendation as to the appropriate regulatory status for the Cow Head tui chub. The Service's Policy for Peer Review requires that we:
(1)Solicit the expert opinions of a minimum of three appropriate and independent specialists regarding pertinent scientific and commercial data and assumptions relating to the taxonomy, population models, and supportive biological and ecological information for species under consideration for listing; and
(2)summarize in the final decision document the opinions of all independent peer reviewers received on the species under consideration. The purpose of a peer review is to ensure that listing decisions are based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses, including input of appropriate experts and specialists. Peer reviewers included two senior research scientists familiar with the Cow Head tui chub and the Cow Head Basin (one from the University of California, Davis and one from U.S. Geological Survey—Biological Resources Division, Reno), four scientists from agencies with management responsibilities in the Cow Head Basin (two from CDFG, one from BLM, and one from the U.S. Forest Service), and one representative of the Cow Head Irrigation District who could provide detailed information on local conditions, especially water management in the basin. All reviewers confirmed the accuracy and completeness of the scientific information in the synthesis. Two reviewers (BLM and Cow Head Irrigation District) helped clarify details of management and hydrology in the Cow Head Basin, which have been incorporated into the final document used for this analysis, along with minor editorial suggestions from the various reviewers. The reviewers did not identify any additional factors that might threaten the Cow Head tui chub. Summary of Factors Affecting the Species Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 424) establishes procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act:
(A)The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range;
(B)overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(C)disease or predation;
(D)the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E)other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. In making this finding, we evaluated whether any of these five factors are a threat to the continued existence of the Cow Head tui chub throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Our evaluation of these threats is presented below. A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of its Habitat or Range In the 1998 proposed rule, reduction of historical range and modification of habitat were considered threats to the Cow Head tui chub (63 FR 15153—54, March 28, 1998). We stated that the range had been reduced by 98 percent due to loss of Cow Head Lake. A better understanding of the basin's hydrology has shown that the lake still provides seasonal habitat in wet years and maintains permanent habitat in the lakebed canals (Reid 2006a, pp. 15-19). In 1998, we also stated that stream habitat was restricted to 5.4 km (3.4 miles). New information developed by Reid (2006a, pp. 15-19) has shown that total linear stream and channel habitat was approximately 10.5 km (6.5 mi) in 2001, a very dry year (Scoppettone and Rissler 2006, p. 108). In the spring, and at times when there is sufficient water, the chub occupies the full lengths of the tributary streams (21.2 km; 13.2 mi). Current information, based on more complete basin-wide surveys, demonstrates that the Cow Head tui chub is more widely distributed than previously thought and maintains populations throughout all of its historical range in all streams and lakebed channels that would have offered suitable habitat in the past. Range Based on our knowledge of historical conditions, the species' habitat needs, and its current distribution, we assume the natural historical range (geographical distribution) of the Cow Head tui chub would have encompassed all low gradient streams with perennial reaches in the Cow Head Basin of California and Nevada, including: Cow Head Lake, Cow Head Slough, Barrel Creek, West Barrel Creek, and Keno Creek (Reid 2006a, pp. 5-6 and 15-19). Based on knowledge of the chub's biology, it is logical to assume there was some natural dispersal downstream into the Twelvemile Creek drainage during higher springtime flows, as there apparently is today, but the fate of these individuals is not known (Reid 2006a, pp. 18-19). Within the Cow Head Basin, the primary distribution of tui chubs, based on habitat needs, would have included any low-energy aquatic habitats, including stream pools, emergent marshes with open water, and Cow Head Lake itself, when present (Moyle 2002, p. 124-125; Reid 2006a, p. 20). Because tui chubs show a preference for low-energy habitats such as pools, it is unlikely they would have typically occupied higher-energy stream reaches with steep gradients, strong flow, or shallow riffles ( *e.g.* , the lower canyon section of Cow Head Slough), although they might move through such habitats. They also would not have occupied higher gradient reaches of the western tributaries coming off the Warner Mountains ( *e.g.* , Eightmile and Ninemile creeks), which have cooler temperatures and are occupied by trout, *Oncorhynchus mykiss* , and speckled dace, *Rhinichthys osculus* (Hubbs 1934, p. 2; Sato 1992, p. 5). Recent surveys on public and private land, facilitated by the 1999 CA, have documented the presence of Cow Head tui chub in all historically perennial water bodies (Minto 1879; see map and discussion in Reid 2006a, pp. 5-8) containing suitable habitat in the Cow Head Basin (Scoppettone and Rissler 2006, p. 5). In 2001, populations were found in all eastern tributaries (Keno, West Barrel, and Barrel Creeks, as well as Cow Head Slough), including private land that had not been previously surveyed, and a large population (estimated to be in the 10,000s) exists on the historic lakebed in perennial canals (Scoppettone and Rissler 2002, p. 5; Reid 2006a, p. 22). Cow Head tui chub presumably disperse throughout Cow Head Slough and the various low-gradient tributaries in the spring and onto the lakebed when it is flooded, with their distribution contracting to the lakebed channels and perennial spring-fed stream reaches each year as the arid summer progresses. In 2001, a very dry year, perennial habitat occupied by the chub remained in all eastern tributaries (Keno Creek—0.5 km (0.3 mi) perennial, West Barrel Creek—1.0 km (0.6 mi) perennial, and Barrel Creek—4.0 km (2.5 mi) perennial), Cow Head Slough (approximately 3 km (1.9 mi) perennial) and the two principal lakebed channels (Pump and Eightmile canals—2 km (1.2 mi) perennial) (Scoppettone and Rissler 2006, pp.108-109; Reid 2006a, pp. 16-18). Habitat—Streams Stream populations of Cow Head tui chub primarily occupy pool habitats, and available habitat area varies depending on the time of year and degree of drought severity (Homuth 2000, p. 10; Scoppettone and Rissler 2006, p.109). Historically, there were four low gradient stream drainages in the Cow Head Basin that had perennial flow and would have contained suitable Cow Head tui chub habitat; all still maintain Cow Head tui chub populations (Reid 2006a, pp. 15-19; Scoppettone and Rissler 2002, p. 5; Scoppettone and Rissler 2006, p. 109). These drainages are currently referred to as Cow Head Slough, which forms the outlet for the Cow Head Basin; Barrel Springs and West Barrel, both of which entered Cow Head Lake itself from the east in 1879; and Keno Spring, which enters Cow Head Slough from the east before it drops into the higher-gradient canyon section. All contain locally perennial pool habitat, which is naturally maintained by small springs. Cow Head Slough flows out of Cow Head Lake. After flowing about 5 km (3.1 mi) to the north, the slough enters a short, half-mile-long canyon and then joins Twelvemile Creek in the Warner Basin. Historically, the slough apparently contained water along most of its length into the summer (Minto 1879; see map and discussion in Reid 2006a, pp. 5-8), but Minto's survey notes do not mention actual flow conditions, and local ranchers interviewed in the 1930s reported that the slough overflowed only during high spring runoff periods (Hubbs 1934, p. 1). Under present management, Cow Head Slough only flows into Twelvemile Creek during the springtime runoff period and while the lakebed is being pumped down, with most continuous stream flow typically ending by late May or early June. Pools with marshy margins and herbaceous riparian vegetation are present all along the length of the slough, with perennial spring-fed reaches concentrated in the southern (upstream) 3 km (1.9 mi). The Barrel Springs drainage also carries considerable runoff in the spring, but summer flows are low, and in the 1879 Minto surveys, the stream channel did not have perennial flow between the Nevada border and Cow Head Lake (see Minto map in Reid 2006a, p. 6). Likewise, the Keno Springs drainage near its confluence with Cow Head Slough was surveyed by Minto in 1879, and was noted simply as a meadow with no creek. The Cow Head Basin is in an arid landscape. (See Factor E—Natural Drought, below). Although surface water is present throughout most of the basin in the early spring, hot and dry summer conditions naturally reduce the quantity of aquatic habitat progressively through the summer and early fall. In drier years, much of Cow Head Slough and the reaches of tributary streams without perennial springs are reduced to isolated pools which often dry up. Permanent pool habitat suitable for Cow Head tui chubs is restricted to reaches maintained by perennial springs. Under historical conditions channel desiccation may have been retarded in Cow Head Slough by the storage capacity of the lake and associated wetlands, and in other streams by narrow wet meadows along the riparian corridors. However, in most dry years when the lake was not overflowing during the summer (which is similar to the current situation under present management), desiccation and loss of aquatic habitat would have progressed in a manner similar to that experienced today; by late summer, available stream habitat would have been limited to perennial spring-fed reaches of Cow Head Slough and the three eastern tributaries (Barrel, West Barrel and Keno creeks). All spring-fed reaches of the slough and the three eastern tributaries currently maintain perennial tui chub populations (Scoppettone and Rissler 2006, p. 109). The only direct modification of streams containing Cow Head tui chub occurred in the 1930s with the dredging of Cow Head Slough for a distance of about 1.3 km (0.8 mi) downstream of Cow Head Lake, and with construction of an earthen levy on the east side to divert flow from the eastern watershed (West Barrel and Barrel Spring drainages) directly into Cow Head Slough near the historical outlet of Cow Head Lake (Reid 2006a, p.8). These modified reaches have since developed into stream reaches with vegetated riparian corridors. There are no water diversions in Cow Head Slough or the eastern tributary streams. Modification of grazing management in the last decade has produced notable improvements and continuing upward trends in channel stability, riparian vegetation, and aquatic habitat quality (USBLM 1996, p. 2; USBLM 2003, p. 9; Reid 2006a, pp. 10, 15-16). Habitat—Cow Head Lake In 1879 a shallow lake covered much of the Cow Head valley floor (Minto 1879, pp. 47, 56, 59; see map, Reid 2006a, p. 8). The maximum depth of the lake was not recorded, but general depths of 40-60 cm (15-24 in) were noted. Its northwestern and southeastern shores were bounded by belts of wet meadow and tule marshes, which are dominated by hardstem bulrush ( *Scirpus acutus* ), as was the outlet channel for a distance of about 4 km (2.5 mi) north along Cow Head Slough, which carried overflow north to a short canyon where it entered Twelvemile Creek and the southern Warner Basin. The lake was fed primarily by snow runoff in the spring from the Warner Mountains to the west and the Barrel Creek and West Barrel Creek drainages in the lower hills to the east. Summer and fall inputs to the lake would have been limited to ground-water-fed base flows of Eightmile Creek, which is supplemented by perennial springs in its lower reaches, and other small perennial springs in the immediate vicinity of the lake (Reid 2006, pp. 5-8). The original survey map shows only Eightmile Creek and the short spring-fed West Barrel Creek as providing flow into the lake in July 1879. Ninemile Creek, which currently does not reach Cow Head Lake during the summer, was shown as a “brook” with no surface flow closer than about 0.8 km (0.5 mi) to the west of the lake on the 1879 survey map drawn by Minto (Reid 2006a, pp. 6-7). Barrel Creek, which contains perennial springs in its middle and upper reaches, apparently did not reach the lake in July 1879. Although Cow Head Lake and its associated emergent marsh historically provided extensive aquatic habitat during some years, it was not a permanent feature. Regional, climatic, and historical evidence suggests that Cow Head Lake itself would have periodically dried up (Reid 2006a, pp. 8, 26-27). (For additional information, see Factor E—Natural Drought, below.) Modification of the western tributaries to Cow Head Lake began in the late 1800s with the diversion of the upper reaches of Eightmile Creek itself to the south into Lake Annie (Reid 2006a, pp. 7-10). The upper Eightmile drainage would have historically provided considerable spring snow runoff into Cow Head Lake; however, late summer base flows from that elevation are minimal following loss of the snow pack. The lower Eightmile drainage is now primarily fed by the Schadler Ditch (built around 1904), which captures runoff from Mount Bidwell (not originally part of the Cow Head Basin) and carries it into Schadler Creek (labeled as Eightmile Creek on the U.S. Geological Survey, Lake Annie Quadrangle). Schadler Reservoir, which is approximately 250 acre-feet in size and was built in the 1960s, collects the flow of Schadler Creek and numerous small springs about 1.6 km (1 mi) upstream of the lake. Water from the reservoir (about 50 acre-feet/month) is used throughout the summer to irrigate downstream pastures, which drain into the Cow Head lakebed channels, or is sent downstream to maintain water in the lakebed channels themselves. In the 1930s, following a period of extended drought, alterations were made to the lakebed to allow drainage of the lake in the spring for agricultural use. Three channels were dug to carry water out of the lakebed. The first comes from the center of the lake to the northwest (here referred to as Lakebed Canal), where it meets a second channel carrying flow from the Eightmile drainage (Eightmile Canal), and then enters a third channel (Pump Canal, also known as Cow Head Ditch) that runs 1 km (0.6 mi) northeast to a pumping station. At that point, water is pumped past a weir into a continuation of the channel (Discharge Channel) that continues on to Cow Head Slough. The outlet of Cow Head Lake into Cow Head Slough was also dredged in the 1930s for a distance of about 1.3 km (0.8 mi), and an earthen levy was constructed on the east side to divert flow from the eastern watershed (West Barrel and Barrel Spring drainages) directly into Cow Head Slough, reducing runoff into the lakebed. Cow Head Lake is now flooded only in the springtime, when it receives local snowmelt and rain, as well as runoff primarily from the western slopes of the basin. Most runoff from the eastern tributaries either flows naturally (Keno Creek) or is now diverted by the earthen levy (Barrel and West Barrel Creeks) into Cow Head Slough. There was enough water to fill the lake in the mid-1980s, 1997, and 2006. When extensive standing water is present, it is pumped off the lakebed by May or June to allow for growth of hay or pasture grass. Pumping has not been necessary for more than a few days since about 1999; however, the high runoff year of 2006 required about 30 days of pumping to bring water levels off the lakebed and into the channels. During the summer, irrigation water is supplemented by local groundwater inputs and water brought down the Eightmile system with releases of water from Schadler Reservoir and perennial spring flow. Perennial aquatic habitat on the lakebed is contained within the canals above the pump. The canal channels are about 10 meters
(m)(33 ft) wide, with a depth up to about 4 m (13 ft). The Pump Canal is approximately 1 km (0.6 mi) long and contains water throughout the summer. Suitable chub habitat in Eightmile Canal is slightly less than 1 km (0.6 mi) long; while this reach has not been specifically surveyed for Cow Head tui chubs, it receives high quality water from the Eightmile drainage and carries it into the Pump Canal. The Lakebed Canal is approximately 1.3 km (0.8 mi) long; however this channel dries up through the summer, after water is pumped down off the lakebed, and rarely contains water much upstream of the confluence with the Pump Channel. Although the lakebed is no longer characterized by extensive emergent marsh habitat, the canals contain submerged aquatic vegetation that provides food, cover, and spawning habitat for the chub. Modifications to the natural hydrology of Cow Head Lake, which occurred in the late 1800s and early 1900s, altered the characteristics and availability of suitable habitat for the Cow Head tui chub on the lakebed (reviewed in Reid 2006a, pp. 5-9). The annual diversion and pumping of water from Cow Head Lake, initiated in the late 1930s, eliminated the opportunity for continuous utilization of lake and peripheral marsh habitat in wet years when the lake would have otherwise filled. However, the Cow Head Basin historically went through periods of extended drought, during which the lake would have contracted or dried completely. During these periods, available Cow Head tui chub habitat would have been restricted to stream reaches fed by perennial springs, as it currently is during dry years. Some of the modifications to the lakebed now actually serve to maintain perennial habitat on the lakebed, which would not have been available to the fish prior to the modifications. The present-day lakebed channels, which provide approximately 2 km (1.2 mi) of perennial habitat, are deeper than the historical lakebed, and water management practices that maintain suitable habitat in the canals during dry periods have actually expanded the habitat available to the Cow Head tui chub during droughts (Reid 2006a, p. 9). The Cow Head tui chub population in the lakebed channels presumably still disperses onto the lakebed when it is flooded in the spring, as there are no barriers that would prevent such movement. Land Management The Cow Head lakebed was generally farmed for grain from 1924 until about 1980, when farming was discontinued (Reid 2006a, p. 10). Since then, the lakebed has been managed solely for grazing and hay production, with no tillage and no application of fertilizers or pesticides. Changes in land management within the basin have resulted in a generally upward trend for Cow Head tui chub habitat. These changes include:
(1)Runoff storage in west-side reservoirs to supplement late-season water supplies for the western channels;
(2)the termination of farming and switch to grazing management on the lakebed itself in the early 1980s, which has resulted in reduced sedimentation in the lakebed channels and Cow Head Slough;
(3)modifications in grazing management on public and private lands, which have resulted in improved conditions within stream corridors and upward trending riparian vegetation conditions;
(4)acquisition of an additional 80-acre parcel by BLM in 2003, which places it under management guidelines established to improve aquatic and riparian habitat, including about 0.5 km (0.3 mi) of occupied habitat in Cow Head Slough containing perennial springs and permanent pools (USBLM 2003, p. 4; Reid 2006a, p. 10); and
(5)ongoing cooperation between public and private stakeholders under a CA signed in 1999 with the stated purpose of conserving the Cow Head tui chub. Landownership in the basin is limited to seven families and the BLM, with most land dedicated to hay and grazing. Based on our knowledge of the area and on the general stability of the local ranching community, we know of no reason why current land use is likely to substantially change in the foreseeable future. Factor A Conclusion The range of the Cow Head tui chub has not changed substantially since 1879. Modification of low-gradient stream habitat in the Cow Head Basin occurred primarily in the early 20th century, with channelization of the southern end of Cow Head Slough in the 1930s and continued livestock grazing. Current management of riparian corridors has resulted in upward habitat trends (USBLM 1996, p. 2; USBLM 2003, p. 9; Reid 2006a, pp. 10, 15-16), and there has been no substantial loss of perennial stream habitat for the Cow Head tui chub. In contrast, the character of Cow Head Lake has changed considerably since the 1800s, with the dewatering of the lake and its associated emergent marshes as a generally perennial, though intermittent, landscape feature. However, even prior to such changes, Cow Head Lake would have been dry and would have provided no habitat during past periods of natural drought when the Cow Head tui chub population would have been most stressed by environmental conditions. During natural droughts, perennial stream reaches associated with permanent springs provided habitat for the Cow Head tui chub, as they do today (Scoppettone and Rissler 2006, p. 109). Furthermore, management of the Cow Head Basin has been essentially stable since the late 1930s, following a 16-year period (1923-1938) of drought when the entire lake was naturally dry; during that time a large population of Cow Head tui chub nevertheless sustained itself throughout the basin and specifically in the drainage canals on the lakebed (Reid 2006a, pp. 5-10; Scoppettone and Rissler 2006, pp. 108-109). There is no reason to expect substantial negative changes to the current management regime. Habitat conditions are generally upward trending and private and public land managers have incorporated and are continuing to implement strategies that have enhanced the availability of permanent water and suitable habitat for Cow Head tui chub (USBLM 1996, p. 2; USFWS 1999, pp. 2, 12; USBLM 2003, p. 9; Reid 2006a, pp. 10, 15-16). Therefore, destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range is not likely to threaten the Cow Head tui chub with extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future. B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes Overutilization was not considered a threat to the species in the 1998 proposed rule (63 FR 15154). The Cow Head tui chub is not a commercial or recreational fish species, and there have been only a few documented scientific collections since 1939 (Reid 2006a, pp. 37-38). Future collections for scientific purposes presumably would be limited to small collections for genetic, morphological, or life history studies, and these would not substantially affect the population as a whole. Therefore, over-utilization is not likely to threaten the Cow Head tui chub with extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future. C. Disease or Predation In the 1998 proposed rule, we indicated that the potential introduction of a catastrophic disease or a nonnative predatory fish could be harmful to Cow Head tui chub, particularly due to the small estimated population size and confined known range of the Cow Head tui chub at that time (63 FR 15154). We also noted that there were no documented instances of disease actually affecting the tui chub or detections of nonnative predatory fish in tui chub habitat. This factor was not considered a principal threat to the species. The potential introductions of a disease or nonnative predators to the Cow Head Basin would be subject to a number of constraints that greatly reduce the likelihood of such occurrence and also reduce the likelihood that a nonnative predator would become established if introduced. These constraints include:
(1)The isolated location of the Cow Head Basin;
(2)the absence of existing nonnative fish populations in the basin;
(3)the habitat characteristics of upper Twelvemile Creek (high gradient, cool water) and the lower canyon reach of Cow Head Slough (high gradient, generally dry or low flow, with no upstream passage except possibly during high spring flows), both of which would impede the upstream invasion of warm-water game fish from the Warner Valley floor;
(4)the absence of source water bodies suitable for warm-water sport fishing (e.g., reservoirs) in the basin (all permanent reservoirs in the Basin are at higher elevations and contain cold water suitable only for trout);
(5)the warm water habitat characteristic of the lower elevation streams containing Cow Head tui chub are not suitable for establishment of nonnative trout;
(6)the location of perennial stream reaches and reservoirs on private lands (so public access and the potential introduction of nonnative fish is less likely);
(7)the expectation that a point source introduction transported illegally to the basin would be limited to relatively few individuals of the nonnative species; and
(8)the continued participation and awareness of private landowners in the CA, which addresses the potential risks of disease or nonnative introductions. The low likelihood of introductions also is supported by the lack of historical introductions of disease or nonnative fishes to the basin over the last century. In the event of an introduction of a nonnative fish, risks to the Cow Head tui chub are further ameliorated by its separation into at least six seasonally isolated populations, and the complete upstream isolation of the largest population (Cow Head lakebed channels) from other areas by the pump structure. We also note that stakeholders will continue to monitor the composition of the fish community in the Cow Head Basin through implementation of the CA and can notify CDFG and the Service if a nonnative fish is identified. The agencies could then remove the introduced fish. While the outbreak of a catastrophic fish disease in the Cow Head Basin could theoretically threaten the Cow Head tui chub due to its relatively limited range, there is no evidence of fish disease in the Cow Head Basin, and we are aware of no documented loss of any native tui chub populations ( *Siphateles* spp.) or other native western cyprinid (fish in the minnow family) due to disease. Because it is unlikely that fish or other exotic hosts will be introduced into Cow Head Basin, there is a very low likelihood that disease will be introduced and spread in the basin. The Cow Head tui chub is most vulnerable to predation during droughts, when much of the drainage dries up and fish are concentrated in smaller pools. Natural predators of the Cow Head tui chub include garter snakes, aquatic insects, and fish-eating birds, with which the population has naturally coexisted under current conditions since the 1920s (Homuth 2000, pp. 6, 8). The original name of Cow Head Lake was Pelican Lake (see Minto 1879 map in Reid 2006a, p. 6), and therefore it is logical to assume that pelicans were among the historic natural predators of the chub. There is no indication that these natural predators represent an extinction threat to the Cow Head tui chub. Introduction of predatory nonnative fishes (e.g., bass, crappie, sunfish, and brown trout) would increase predation pressure on the Cow Head tui chub population. However, for a nonnative predator to represent a threat to the Cow Head tui chub, the nonnative species would have to successfully establish a resident population that spreads throughout a significant portion of basin. This is unlikely for the reasons given above, and during a severe drought, when the Cow Head tui chub would be most vulnerable, the various populations and even individual pools are generally isolated by dry reaches. Factor C Conclusion No known disease or predator currently threatens the Cow Head tui chub. For the reasons described above, the introduction and establishment of a disease or nonnative fish predator into the Cow Head Basin is not likely to occur and, in the unlikely event it were to occur, is not likely to threaten the Cow Head tui chub with extinction. Therefore, disease and predation are not likely to threaten the Cow Head tui chub with extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future. D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms The 1998 proposed rule stated that there were no regulatory mechanisms that specifically protected the Cow Head tui chub or its habitat, and generally concluded that available regulatory mechanisms were inadequate to protect or appropriately manage the species (63 FR 15154, March 30, 1998). The proposed rule summarized the following regulatory mechanisms:
(1)CDFG's designation of the Cow Head tui chub as a species of special concern, Class 1: Endangered;
(2)The National Environmental Policy Act;
(3)section 404 of the Clean Water Act;
(4)the California Environmental Quality Act; and
(5)section 1603 of the California Fish and Game Code (63 FR 15154). However, as discussed above, based on current information, we have determined that there are no significant threats to the Cow Head tui chub or its habitat that would trigger the need for additional regulation. The Cow Head tui chub occurs on a mix of public
(BLM)and private land, with the majority of the populations being on private land where there is more perennial water. On public lands (i.e., Cow Head Slough) and most adjoining riparian corridors on private lands used for grazing, Cow Head tui chub habitat is managed according to riparian health standards under BLM policy and receives protection from measures undertaken by BLM as a result of a Section 7 consultation with the Service on the Warner sucker, *Catostomus warnerensis,* a federally-listed species with similar habitat requirements (BLM 2003, p. 4). Factor D Conclusion We are not aware of threats to the continued existence of the Cow Head tui chub that would require or be ameliorated by further regulation. Therefore “inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms” is not a factor likely to threaten the Cow Head tui chub with extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future. E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Eistence The 1998 proposed rule briefly discussed several additional factors that were considered potential threats to the Cow Head tui chub, including the generalized vulnerabilities of species that have very small populations, pesticides, introduction of nonnative competitors, and natural drought (63 FR 15154-55, March 30, 1998). The vulnerabilities identified in the 1998 proposed rule (possible excessively high death or low birth rates, deleterious effects of genetic drift and inbreeding, and sensitivity to localized stochastic events) were based on the assumption that the Cow Head tui chub had been reduced to a single, small population, with an extremely restricted range and no additional populations available for recolonization in the event of a localized extinction (63 FR 15155, March 30, 1998). Current information demonstrates that the Cow Head tui chub population is considerably larger and more widely distributed than previously thought and is separated into six seasonally isolated populations in five subdrainages of the Cow Head Basin. (See Factor A discussion, above.) A recent genetic study of regional tui chubs also found that genetic diversity in the Cow Head tui chub is similar to other stream-resident chub populations, and shows no indication of genetic threats to the species (Chen 2006, pp. 46-48). In the proposed rule we said: “Pest control programs * * * that introduce pesticides into the drainage are a threat to the Cowhead Lake tui chub.” We no longer believe such programs pose a threat to the Cow Head tui chub. The only substantial use of pesticides in the Cow Head Basin is in the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) rangeland grasshopper/cricket control program, which is implemented only during occasional years when there are grasshopper or cricket outbreaks. The Service is familiar with this program because of section 7 consultations with APHIS. Pesticides are applied so as to minimize risk to non-target species; this is done through ultra-low volume sprays, selection of chemical sprays and baits, use of adequate buffers, and other means. Moreover, this program focuses on localized upland areas (surrounding the lakebed) where grasshoppers lay their eggs. Pesticides are not applied to aquatic habitat, and in the event of an accidental spill or application or drift by wind or water movement, the adverse effect would be localized, particularly since application typically occurs during low or no flow seasons, when pool habitats are not interconnected. Other agricultural activities and land management in the Cow Head Basin are limited to hay production and grazing and pesticides are not applied to these crops (Reid 2006a, p. 10). Therefore, pesticide contamination is not likely to threaten the Cow Head tui chub with extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future. The introduction of nonnative competitors, such as bait minnows (e.g., shiners, fathead minnows) tui chubs introduced from other basins, and mosquito fish ( *Gambusia* ), could adversely affect the Cow Head tui chub. However, there are no populations of nonnative fishes present in the basin at this time, and the likelihood of their introduction and subsequent establishment is low, for the reasons discussed earlier (see Factor C discussion of predation, above). Natural Drought The northwestern corner of the Great Basin, where Cow Head Lake is located is subject to extended droughts, during which even the larger lakes are sometimes dry (Phillips and Van Denburgh 1971, p. B6; Negrini 2002, p. 40). Goose Lake, with an area over 100,000 acres, is located in the next basin to the west. It was recorded as essentially dry in the summers of 1846 and 1849 by early travelers, and more recently was dry in the late summers of 1926, 1929-34 and 1992 (Pease 1965, p. 30, 58; Phillips and Van Denburgh 1971, pp. 31-32; Johnson et al. 1985, p. 82). Crump Lake, which is the southernmost lake in the Warner Basin into which Cow Head and Twelvemile Creek waters ultimately flow, also has a history of natural desiccation and sometimes goes dry for several years at a time. Also, the large, shallow Alkali lakes in Surprise Valley to the south of the Cow Head Basin are dry or nearly dry in most summers (Phillips and Van Denburgh 1971, pp. 37-38; Johnson et al. 1985, p. 180). There is no record of how frequently Cow Head Lake went dry under natural conditions. However, residents of the Cow Head Basin reported that Cow Head Lake was dry in 1908, 1912, 1923 or 1924, 1928, and from 1930-34, all prior to alteration of the lakebed (Hubbs 1934, p.1; Reid 2006a, p. 8). In the past, the Cow Head tui chub must have survived severe droughts by occupying perennial habitat such as natural spring-fed reaches of tributary drainages and more recently, in perennial canal habitat on the lakebed. The “dustbowl” drought of the 1920-30s appears to have been the most extreme regional drought in at least the last 270 years, and probably the last 700 years (Keen 1937, p.188; Knapp et al. 2004, p.144). The original collection of Cow Head tui chub in 1939 followed that drought. Since that time, periodic droughts have occurred every 10-20 years (Reid 2006a, p. 26-27). A recent genetic study indicates that the population has maintained genetic diversity comparable to other stream populations of chubs, in spite of the relatively frequent constraints on its distribution and potential population size reductions caused by droughts (Chen 2006, pp. 46-48). The 2001 distribution surveys, undertaken in one of the driest years under current management regimes, showed Cow Head tui chubs were widely distributed, thus providing further evidence of the ability of the chub population to persist given availability of suitable habitat (Scoppettone and Rissler 2006, p.109; Reid 2006a, p.27). Although it is impossible to accurately predict future climatic conditions, drought will very likely continue to play an important role in the biology of the Cow Head tui chub. Conservation of perennial spring-fed reaches in the tributary drainages and on the lakebed is, therefore, crucial to the long-term survival of the Cow Head tui chub. Public and private land managers are providing grazing management and efforts that have protected and continue to protect and enhance spring resources. We have no reason to believe this situation will change. Although extreme natural drought has the potential to reduce the distribution of the Cow Head tui chub and its available habitat (and droughts are likely to occur periodically in the future), the chub has demonstrated considerable resiliency in its ability to survive substantial regional droughts experienced over the last century, all under the current management regime. Permanent habitat, provided by perennial spring-fed stream reaches in five subdrainages of the Cow Head Basin, including the lakebed channels, is likely to remain available in the foreseeable future. Factor E Conclusion As discussed above, based on the best scientific information currently available, we have determined that none of the natural or manmade factors identified as potential threats in the 1998 proposed rule (63 FR 15152, March 30, 1998), including vulnerabilities associated with local endemic species, pesticide use, nonnative competitors and natural droughts, individually or collectively rise to a level likely to threaten the Cow Head tui chub throughout all or significant portion of its range in the foreseeable future. Finding In making this determination, we carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information available regarding past, present, and future threats to the Cow Head tui chub. Much of this information was developed or improved subsequent to the original 1998 proposal to list the Cow Head tui chub (63 FR 15152, March 30, 1998). As discussed under Factor A, the natural range of the Cow Head tui chub has not changed substantially since 1879. Modification of low-gradient stream habitat in the Cow Head Basin occurred primarily in the early 20th century, and there has been no substantial loss of perennial stream habitat for the Cow Head tui chub due to habitat modification. Although the character of Cow Head Lake itself has changed considerably since the 1800s, management of the Cow Head Basin has been essentially stable since the late 1930s. This is evidenced most dramatically by the fact that a large population of Cow Head tui chub has sustained itself throughout the basin (and specifically in the drainage canals on the lakebed), even following an especially severe, 16-year (1923-1938) drought when the entire lake was naturally dry. There is no reasonable expectation for substantial negative changes to the current management regime, and habitat conditions are generally upward trending, with management by private and public land managers incorporating strategies that enhance the availability of permanent water and suitable habitat for Cow Head tui chub. As discussed under Factor B, the Cow Head tui chub is not a commercial or recreational fish species and there are only a few documented scientific collections since 1939. Future collections for scientific purposes presumably would be limited, and overutilization is not likely to threaten the Cow Head tui chub with extinction in the foreseeable future. As discussed under Factor C, no disease or predator currently threatens the Cow Head tui chub. Furthermore, the introduction and establishment of a disease or nonnative predator into the Cow Head Basin is not likely to occur and, in the unlikely event it were to occur, is not likely to threaten the Cow Head tui chub with extinction in the foreseeable future. As discussed under Factor D, there are currently no recognized threats to the continued existence of the Cow Head tui chub identified under the other factors that require or would be ameliorated by further regulation. Further, the chub has persisted, with populations still occurring throughout its historic range, with the existing regulatory mechanisms. Therefore, we conclude that the possible inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms is not likely to threaten the Cow Head tui chub with extinction in the foreseeable future. As discussed under Factor E, we have not identified additional factors that rise to a level likely to threaten the Cow Head tui chub with extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Extreme natural drought has the potential to severely constrain the distribution of the Cow Head tui chub and its available habitat as it has in the past, and droughts are likely to occur periodically in the future. However, the Cow Head tui chub has demonstrated considerable resiliency in its ability to survive substantial regional droughts experienced over the last century, all under the current management regime. Permanent habitat provided by perennial spring-fed stream reaches in five subdrainages of the Cow Head Basin is likely to remain available in the foreseeable future. Therefore, natural drought and the additional factors discussed in Factor E are not likely to threaten the Cow Head tui chub with extinction in the foreseeable future. Based on the lack of present or foreseeable threats to its continued existence, we have determined that the Cow Head tui chub is not likely to become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (section 3(6) of the Act) and, therefore, does not meet the Act's definition of threatened or endangered. Consequently, we withdraw our 1998 proposal to list the Cow Head tui chub as endangered (63 FR 15152, March 30, 1998). We will continue to monitor the status of the species and to accept additional information and comments from all concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party concerning this finding. We will reconsider this determination in the event that new information indicates that such an action is appropriate. References Cited A complete list of all references cited is available at the Service's Klamath Falls Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES ). Author The primary authors of this notice are the staff of the Service's Klamath Falls Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES above). Authority The authority of this action is section 4(b)(6)(B)(ii) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). Dated: September 28, 2006. Marshall Jones, Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. E6-16544 Filed 10-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised 12-Month Finding for the Beaver Cave Beetle ( Pseudanophthalmus major ) AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of revised 12-month petition finding. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce our revised 12-month finding for a petition to list the Beaver Cave beetle ( *Pseudanophthalmus major* ) under the Endangered Species Act
(Act)of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). After a review of the best available scientific and commercial information, we conclude that this species is not likely to become an endangered or threatened species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Therefore, we find that proposing a rule to list the species is not warranted, and we no longer consider it to be a candidate species for listing. However, the Service will continue to seek new information on the taxonomy, biology, and ecology of this species, as well as potential threats to its continued existence. DATES: This finding was made on October 11, 2006. Although no further action will result from this finding, we request that you submit new information concerning the taxonomy, biology, ecology, and status of the Beaver Cave beetle, as well as potential threats to its continued existence, whenever such information becomes available. ADDRESSES: The complete file for this finding is available for inspection, by appointment and during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 3761 Georgetown Road, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601. Submit new information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this species to us at the same address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Michael A. Floyd, Kentucky Ecological Services Field Office at the address listed above, by telephone at 502-695-0468, by facsimile at 502-695-1024, or by e-mail at *mike_floyd@fws.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Act provides two mechanisms for considering species for listing. One method allows the Secretary, on his own initiative, to identify species for listing under the standards of section 4(a)(1). We implement this through an assessment process to identify species that are candidates for listing, which means we have on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to support a proposal to list the species as endangered or threatened, but for which preparation and publication of a proposal is precluded by higher-priority listing actions. Using this process, we identified the Beaver Cave beetle as a candidate for listing in 2001 and included it in the Candidate Notice of Review
(CNOR)published in the **Federal Register** on October 30, 2001 (66 FR 54808). In subsequent CNORs that we published on June 13, 2002 (67 FR 40657), May 4, 2004 (69 FR 24875), and May 11, 2005 (70 FR 24870), we continued to recognize this species as a candidate for listing based on updated assessments of its status. We also published a CNOR on September 12, 2006 (71 FR 53755), which maintained the species as a candidate for listing because we had not yet finalized this, our most current review of the species. A second mechanism that the Act provides for considering species for listing is for the public to petition us to add a species to the Federal Lists of Threatened or Endangered Species (Lists) found at 50 CFR 17.11 (animals) and § 17.12 (plants). Under section 4(b)(3)(A), when we receive such a petition, we must determine within 90 days, to the extent practicable, whether the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information that listing may be warranted (a “90-day finding”). If we make a positive 90-day finding, we must promptly commence a status review of the species and under section 4(b)(3)(B), we must make and publish one of three possible findings within 12 months of receipt of such a petition (a “12-month finding”): 1. The petitioned action is not warranted; 2. The petitioned action is warranted (in which case we are to promptly publish a proposed regulation to implement the petitioned action); or 3. The petitioned action is warranted but
(a)the immediate proposal of a regulation and final promulgation of a regulation implementing the petitioned action is precluded by pending proposals, and
(b)expeditious progress is being made to add qualified species to the Lists (i.e., a “warranted but precluded” 12-month petition finding). Our standard for making a species a candidate through our own initiative is identical to the standard for making a “warranted but precluded” 12-month petition finding. On May 11, 2004, the Service received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity to list 225 species we previously had identified as candidates for listing, including the Beaver Cave beetle. Pursuant to requirements in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, the CNOR and Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions published by the Service on May 11, 2005 (70 FR 24870) included a finding that the immediate issuance of a proposed listing rule and the timely promulgation of a final rule for each of these petitioned species, including the Beaver Cave beetle, was warranted but precluded by higher priority listing actions, and that expeditious progress was being made to add qualified species to the Lists. Section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act directs that when we make a “warranted but precluded” finding on a petition, we are to treat the petition as being one that is resubmitted annually on the date of the finding; thus the Act requires us to reassess the petitioned actions and to publish a finding on the resubmitted petition on an annual basis. We included a “warranted but precluded” finding on the resubmitted petition on the Beaver Cave beetle in the CNOR and Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions published in the **Federal Register** on September 12, 2006 (71 FR 53755). The resubmitted petition finding was based on an assessment of the Beaver Cave beetle that covered information available as of October 2005. Although we typically make the annual finding for petitioned candidate species through the CNOR, we are not required to wait a full year to reassess the status of such species and may publish a revised petition finding separately from the CNOR. That is what we are doing in this situation. As a result of new information regarding conservation efforts for the Beaver Cave beetle, we have completed a reassessment of its status (FWS 2006a). The updated assessment document is available from our Kentucky Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES , above). This resubmitted 12-month finding evaluates new information, as described in the species assessment and related documents referenced in it, and re-evaluates previously-acquired information. Species Information The Beaver Cave beetle ( *Pseudanophthalmus major* ) was described by Krekeler
(1973)from 3 specimens collected from Beaver Cave, Harrison County, Kentucky by T.C. Barr and J.R. Holsinger in 1966. Cave beetles in the genus Pseudanophthalmus are small, eyeless, reddish-brown insects that belong to the predatory ground beetle family Carabidae. Like most other insects, they have six legs and a body that consists of a head, thorax, and abdomen. Body length is generally from 3.0 to 8.0 millimeters
(mm)(0.12 to 0.32 inches), depending upon the species. Maximum body length for the Beaver Cave beetle is 8 mm. According to Barr (1996), the genus *Pseudanophthalmus* is represented by approximately 255 species. The different species within the genus are differentiated by differences in the shape and size of the various body parts, especially the shape of the male appendages used during reproduction. Most members of the genus are cave dependent (troglobites) and are not found outside the cave environment. All are predatory and feed upon small cave invertebrates such as spiders, mites, millipedes, and diplurans, while the larger *Pseudanophthalmus* species also feed on cave cricket eggs (Barr 1996). Members of this genus vary in rarity from fairly common, widespread species that are found in many caves to species that are extremely rare and restricted to only one cave, such as the Beaver Cave beetle. Little detailed life history information is available for the rarest of the cave beetles, including the Beaver Cave beetle. However, the generalized summary that follows is accurate for the more common and more easily studied species and is believed to also apply to the rarer species (Barr 1998). Cave beetles copulate in the fall, and the eggs are deposited in the cave soil during late fall. The eggs hatch and larvae appear in late fall through early winter. Pupation occurs in late winter to early summer with the adult beetles emerging in early summer (Barr 1996). The limestone caves in which these cave beetles are found provide a unique and fragile environment that supports a variety of species that have evolved to survive and reproduce under the demanding conditions found in cave ecosystems. No photosynthesis takes place within the dark zone of a cave. Therefore, all organisms that are adapted to life within a cave are dependent upon energy from the surface. This energy can be in the form of leaf litter, woody debris or small bits of organic matter that is washed or falls into the cave, or guano deposited by cave-dependent bats that feed on the surface and return to the cave to roost (Barr 1996). The Beaver Cave beetle is restricted to Beaver Cave, a limestone cave located in the Bluegrass Region of central Kentucky. There are no other caves in the vicinity of Beaver Cave, and the Beaver cave beetle has not been found at any other locations. The only known entrance to Beaver Cave is located in an open pasture and hillside of a dairy farm in eastern Harrison County. The cave generally trends northeastward from its entrance for approximately 350 meters before terminating in a breakdown (i.e., a portion of the cave where the ceiling has collapsed) (Laudermilk 2006). Most of Beaver Cave is comprised of a simple, narrow passage approximately 1 meter wide and 2.5 meters high. However, there are several larger rooms present, and there are multiple levels in a few places (Laudermilk 2006). A more extensive description of the cave can be found in Barr (1996). Conservation Efforts The Service's Partners for Fish and Wildlife (Partners) Program (Kentucky Ecological Services Field Office) began working with the owner of the Beaver Cave property in 2002, and other partners (Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources (KDFWR), Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), Farm Service Agency (FSA), Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission, and Kentucky Division of Forestry) soon thereafter, to implement projects that would conserve Beaver Cave and the species that occupy it and in order to eliminate the threats to the Beaver Cave beetle and its habitat or reduce them to the point that listing was no longer warranted. The Partners Program coordinated several conservation efforts that were planned and implemented through five inter-related agreements/contracts between the landowner and the agencies listed above:
(a)A Partners Program 15-year Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Agreement;
(b)a Continuous Conservation Reserve Program
(CCRP)15-year contract through FSA;
(c)a Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program
(WHIP)15-year contract through NRCS; and
(d)two Landowner Incentive Program
(LIP)10-year agreements through KDFWR. These projects were initiated in the summer of 2003 and fully implemented by fall of 2005. Collectively, these agreements and contracts encompassed three general conservation efforts:
(1)Maintain Beaver Cave and the landowner's surrounding property in a manner that
(a)reduces or eliminates sediment and animal waste within the cave's watershed by excluding cattle from the cave entrance with fencing, developing and implementing a rotational grazing program, and installing hardened stream crossings and heavy use areas, and
(b)establishes and maintains a forested buffer around the entrance to Beaver Cave;
(2)construct and maintain the metal gate at the entrance to Beaver Cave; and
(3)control and limit access to Beaver Cave and the landowner's surrounding property. Many aspects of the conservation efforts identified in the five inter-related agreements are on-going, such as maintenance of the gate and control of access into the cave, and others have already been implemented (e.g., exclusion of cattle, construction of the cave gate, tree plantings, hardened stream crossings). Based on our evaluation of each of the three conservation efforts using the criteria provided in the Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions
(PECE)(68 FR 15100), we have determined that each of the three efforts is sufficiently certain to be implemented and effective so as to have contributed to the elimination or reduction of threats to the species (FWS 2006b). Therefore, the Service can consider these conservation efforts in making a determination as to whether the Beaver Cave beetle meets the Service's definition of a threatened or endangered species. Discussion of Listing Factors Section 4 of the Act and implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 424 set forth procedures for adding species to the Lists. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species based on the applicability of one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1). These factors and their application to the Beaver Cave beetle are summarized below. A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range In our initial assessment of the Beaver Cave beetle in 2001, we identified this species as a candidate for listing due to the present and threatened destruction and modification of its habitat (66 FR 54800). The activities contributing to this threat factor have now been addressed, as summarized below. In our initial 2001 assessment and subsequent CNORs and petition findings, we identified and recognized a potential risk of destruction or modification of the cave environment (the species' habitat) which could occur as a result of
(1)polluted runoff from the farm operation, specifically animal waste, sediment, or spills of toxic materials in the watershed in which the cave occurs; and
(2)unauthorized human entry to Beaver Cave (i.e., trash dumping, vandalism, physical habitat disturbance, and trampling of beetles). We now have determined that the potential risk of polluted stormwater runoff is limited, because these pollutants have been significantly reduced through full implementation of the CCRP contracts, LIP agreement, and Partners agreement specified above. These contracts and agreements and subsequent conservation efforts have eliminated these threats or reduced them to a point that any negative effects are unexpected or would be insignificant to the point that this listing factor no longer applies. The reduction in threats has been accomplished through the installation of two heavy-use feeding areas that are away from the cave and its entrance and associated exclusion fencing, the development of a rotational grazing program that concentrates cattle away from the cave entrance and its watershed, and the installation of a hardened stream crossing within the Beaver Cave watershed. Also, these agreements and contracts provided funding for cattle exclusion fencing and native vegetation plantings surrounding the cave entrance, thereby protecting it from cattle disturbance and establishing a natural filter (barrier) for any potential non-point source pollutants that could potentially enter the cave during storm events. Toxic material spills from external sources are improbable, because the Beaver Cave watershed is small and not in an area where toxic chemicals are produced or stored, nor is there likely to be transport of toxic materials in the area due to the rural nature of the surrounding area. A trash and debris-filled sinkhole that is connected to Beaver was also unclogged and cleaned, providing further protection against contamination of the underground drainage basin. To address the unlawful human trespass, trash dumping, vandalism, and habitat degradation of Beaver Cave, a bat-friendly cave gate was constructed just inside the cave entrance in 2004. The WHIP contract provided 53 percent of the funding for the cave gate construction, and the remaining 47 percent was obtained through a second LIP agreement. Under these agreements and contracts, unlawful entry to Beaver Cave is prevented, and the landowner has assumed responsibility for maintaining and inspecting the gate. This includes periodic inspections of the gate, taking necessary steps to repair the gate as needed, and ensuring the gate does not become blocked with rock or other debris that would block access to the cave for native bats or other species or prevent organic matter from entering the cave. Bat guano and other organic matter from the surface are important components of energy flow for the cave environment. Fencing has been erected around an approximate 1-acre area containing the entrance to Beaver Cave to promote the development of natural habitat around the cave entrance, provide further protection to the property, and control access to the cave entrance. These actions promote energy flow and eliminate the threats from dumping, vandalism, and unauthorized trespass such that this listing factor no longer applies. Many aspects of these conservation efforts are on-going, such as the growth and monitoring of the riparian plantings, maintenance of the cave gate, and control of access into the cave, but all of the primary habitat restoration and protection efforts (e.g., cave gate construction, fencing and subsequent cattle exclusion, hardened feeding areas, tree plantings, sinkhole clean-up) have already been completed. Based on the information summarized above, the Beaver Cave beetle is not threatened by the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range. B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes We have no evidence of overutilization of the Beaver Cave beetle in the past for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes, and have no information that suggests such a threat exists in the foreseeable future. Under the inter-related agreements specified above, collection for scientific purposes would be allowed only with the permission of the landowner and the Service. The cave has been used for recreational purposes by spelunkers and by passive recreationists in the past, but placement of the locked metal gate across the cave entrance in 2004 has effectively eliminated such uses. Further, through maintenance of the metal gate at the cave entrance, as required by the LIP agreement and WHIP contract, all unauthorized access to the cave is prevented. Based on these considerations, overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is not a threat to the species. C. Disease or Predation Disease and predation are not known to be threats for this species and are, instead, a normal part of its life history. Mortality from disease or predation likely occurs but has not eliminated this species in the past, and we have no reason to expect disease or predation to pose a substantial risk to the species in the future. Based on these considerations, disease or predation is not a threat to the species. D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms Although the Beaver Cave beetle is listed as endangered in Kentucky by the Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission, such listings provide no substantive protection under the current Kentucky law. However, there are no foreseeable reasons why specific regulatory mechanisms are necessary to ensure the conservation of this species, because the landowner and the involved agencies have committed to and are implementing various conservation efforts to protect Beaver Cave and the Beaver Cave beetle. These include, but are not limited to, strictly controlling access to the cave and the property surrounding the cave opening and restoring and enhancing the vegetation communities surrounding the cave and in its watershed. The metal gate is effective in preventing unauthorized entry into the cave, and as described above, the landowner has committed to and is implementing measures to strictly control access to the cave. Based on these considerations, the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms is not a threat to the species. E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence Populations of this beetle species are restricted to Beaver Cave and are generally thought to be represented by a small number of individuals. Although this is a natural situation, their limited distribution and numbers make this species vulnerable to extirpation due to effects from various manmade factors, such as spills of toxic substances, non-point source pollutants, and habitat-related damage, as described above under Factor A. As described above, the conservation efforts included in the five inter-related agreements summarized above have removed or substantially reduced these habitat-related risks. Small population sizes for these species may also limit the natural interchange of genetic material within the population, which could affect long-term genetic and population viability. However, this is an endemic species that has persisted over time (i.e., from at least the time of its discovery to the present time) and under conditions that were worse than the current, more-protective situation despite the perceived risks of limited genetic interchange. For the reasons described above, the Beaver Cave beetle is not threatened by other natural or human-caused factors. Revised Petition Finding We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats faced by the Beaver Cave beetle. We have evaluated the threats to the Beaver Cave beetle and considered factors that, individually and in combination, presently or potentially could pose a risk to the species and its habitat. We conclude that listing this species under the Act is not warranted, because the species is not likely to become an endangered or threatened species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. This species no longer meets our definition of a candidate and is removed from candidate status. We will continue to monitor the status of the Beaver Cave beetle, and to accept additional information and comments from all concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party concerning this finding. We will reconsider this determination in the event that new information indicates that the threats to this species are of a considerably greater magnitude or imminence than identified here. References A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon request from the Kentucky Ecological Services Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES ). Author The primary author of this finding is Dr. Michael A. Floyd, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES ). Authority The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). Dated: September 28, 2006. Marshall Jones, Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. E6-16540 Filed 10-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P 71 196 Wednesday, October 11, 2006 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request October 4, 2006. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding
(a)whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV* or fax
(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling
(202)720-8958. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Food and Nutrition Service *Title:* Summer Food Service Program Claim for Reimbursement. *OMB Control Number:* 0584-0041. *Summary of Collection:* The Summer Food Service Program Claim for Reimbursement Form is used to collect meal and cost data from sponsors to determine the reimbursement entitlement for meals served. The form is sent to the Food and Nutrition Service's
(FNS)Regional Offices where it is entered into a computerized payment system. The payment system computes earnings to date and the number of meals to date and generates payments for the amount of earnings in excess of prior advance and claim payments. To fulfill the earned reimbursement requirements set forth in the Summer Food Service Program Regulations issued by the Secretary of Agriculture (7 CFR 225.9), the meal and cost data must be collected on the FNS-143, Claim for Reimbursement form. *Need and Use of the Information:* FNS will collect information to manage, plan, evaluate, and account for government resources. The reports and records are required to ensure the proper and judicious use of public funds. If the information is not collected on the claim form, the sponsor could not receive reimbursement. *Description of Respondents:* Not-for-profit institutions. *Number of Respondents:* 123. *Frequency of Responses:* Recordkeeping; Reporting: Other (5 per year). *Total Burden Hours:* 423. Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E6-16724 Filed 10-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request October 5, 2006. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding
(a)whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV* or fax
(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling
(202)720-8681. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. National Agricultural Statistics Service *Title:* Honey Survey. *OMB Control Number:* 0535-0153. *Summary of Collection:* The National Agricultural Statistics Service
(NASS)primary function is to prepare and issue State and national estimates of crop and livestock production. General authority for these data collection activities is granted under U.S. Code Title 7, Section 2204. Domestic honeybees are critical to the pollination of U.S. crops, especially fruits and vegetables. Africanized bees, parasites, diseases, and pesticides threaten the survival of bees. Programs are provided by federal, State and local governments to assist in the survival of bees and to encourage beekeepers to maintain bee colonies. *Need and Use of the Information:* NASS will collect information on the number of colonies, honey production, stocks, and prices. The survey will provide data needed by the Department and other government agencies to administer programs and to set trade quotas and tariffs. Without the information agricultural industry would not be aware of changes at the State and national level. *Description of Respondents:* Farms. *Number of Respondents:* 5,281. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: Annually. *Total Burden Hours:* 790. Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E6-16725 Filed 10-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-20-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request October 4, 2006. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding
(a)whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV* or fax
(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling
(202)720-8681. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Forest Service *Title:* Forest Industries Data Collection System. *OMB Control Number:* 0596-0010. *Summary of Collection:* The Forest and Range Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 and the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act of 1978 require the Forest Service
(FS)to evaluate trends in the use of logs and wood chips, to forecast anticipated levels of logs and wood chips, and to analyze changes in the harvest of the resources. Forest product and other wood-using industries are important to state, regional, and national economies. In most southern states, the value of rounded timber products is ranked either first or second in relation to other major agricultural crops. The importance and value of the timber products industry is significant in other regions of the United States as well. The FS will collect information using questionnaires. *Need and Use of the Information:* FS will collect information to monitor the types, species, volumes, sources, and prices of the timber products harvested throughout the Nation. The data will be used to develop specific economic development plans for a new forest-related industry in a State and to assist existing industries in identifying raw material problems and opportunities. If the information were not collected, data would not be available for sub-state, state, regional, and national policy makers and program developers to make decisions related to the forestland on a scientific basis. *Description of Respondents:* Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions. *Number of Respondents:* 1,816. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: On occasion; Annually. *Total Burden Hours:* 1,462. Forest Service *Title:* Application for Permit, Non-Federal Commercial Use of Roads Restricted by Order. *OMB Control Number:* 0596-0016. *Summary of Collection:* The Forest Service
(FS)transportation system includes approximately 380,000 miles of roads. These roads are grouped into five maintenance levels. Level one includes roads, which are closed and maintained only to protect the environment. Level of maintenance increase to level five, which is maintained for safe passenger car use. The roads usually provide the only access to commercial products including timber and minerals found on both Federal and private lands within and adjacent to National Forests. Annual maintenance not performed becomes a backlog that creates a financial burden for the FS. To remedy the backlog and pay for needed maintenance the FS requires commercial users to apply and pay for a permit to use the FS Road System. Maintenance resulting from commercial use is accomplished through collection of funds or requiring the commercial users to perform the maintenance. The vehicle for this is the Road Use Permit. The authority for the Road Use Permit process comes from 36 CFR 212.5, 36 CFR 212.9 and 36 CFR 261.54 Section 212.9 authorizes the FS to develop a road system with private in holders that is mutually beneficial to both parties. *Need and Use of the Information:* Persons wishing to haul commercial will use form, FS 7700-40. The form provides identifying information about the applicant such as, the name; address; and telephone number; description of mileage of roads; purpose of use; use schedule; and plans for future use. FS will use the information to prepare the applicant's permit, to identify the road maintenance that is the direct result of the applicant's traffic, to calculate any applicable collections for recovery of past Federal investments in roads and assure that the requirements are met. Without the Road Use Permit, the backlog of maintenance would increase and the FS would have great difficulty providing the transportation system necessary to meet our mission. *Description of Respondents:* Business or other for-profit; Individuals or households; State, Local or Tribal Government; Not-for-profit institutions. *Number of Respondents:* 2000. *Frequency of Responses:* *Reporting:* On occasion. *Total Burden Hours:* 500. Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E6-16726 Filed 10-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request October 4, 2006. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding
(a)whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV* or fax
(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling
(202)720-8681. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Rural Housing Service *Title:* 7 CFR Part 1924-A, Planning and Performing Construction and Other Development. *OMB Control Number:* 0575-0042. *Summary of Collection:* The Rural Housing Service
(RHS)is the credit agency for rural housing and community development within the Rural Development mission area of the United States Department of Agriculture. RHS offers a supervised credit program to build modest housing and essential community facilities in rural areas. Section 501 of Title V of the Housing Act of 1949, authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to extend financial assistance to construct, improve, alter, repair, replace, or rehabilitate dwellings, farm buildings and/or related facilities to provide decent, safe sanitary living conditions and adequate farm building and other structures in rural areas. *Need and Use of the Information:* RHS provides several forms to assist in the collection and submission of information. The information will be used to determine whether a loan/grant can be approved; to ensure that RHS has adequate security for the loans financed; to monitor compliance with the terms and conditions of the agency loan/grant and to monitor the prudent use of Federal funds. If the information is not collected and submitted, RHS would have no control over the type and quality of construction and development work planned and performed with Federal funds. *Description of Respondents:* Individuals or households; Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions; Farms. *Number of Respondents:* 25,340. *Frequency of Responses:* *Recordkeeping; Report:* On occasion. *Total Burden Hours:* 117,858. Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E6-16727 Filed 10-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XT-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request October 5, 2006. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding
(a)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV* or fax
(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling
(202)720-8681. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Rural Business Service *Title:* Intermediary Re-lending Program. *OMB Control Number:* 0570-0021. *Summary of Collection:* The objective of the Intermediary Relending Program
(IRP)is to improve community facilities and employment opportunities and increase economic activity in rural areas by financing business facilities and community development. This purpose is achieved through loans made by the Rural Business-Cooperative Service
(RBS)to intermediaries that establish programs for the purpose of providing loans to ultimate recipients for business facilities and community development. The Food Security Act of 1985 provides USDA with the authority to make loans to nonprofit entities who will in turn provide financial assistance to rural businesses to improve business, industry and employment opportunities as well as provide a diversification of the economy in rural areas. *Need and Use of the Information:* The information requested is necessary for RBS to process applications in a responsible manner, make prudent credit and program decisions, and effectively monitor the intermediaries' activities to protect the Government's financial interest and ensure that funds obtained from the Government are used appropriately. Various forms are used to include information to identify the intermediary, describe the intermediary's experience and expertise, describe how the intermediary will operate its revolving loan fund, provide for debt instruments, loan agreements, and security, and other material necessary for prudent credit decisions and reasonable program monitoring. *Description of Respondents:* Not-for-profit institutions; Business or other for-profit. *Number of Respondents:* 202. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: On occasion. *Total Burden Hours:* 17,959. Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E6-16752 Filed 10-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XT-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Farm Service Agency Finding of No Significant Impact AGENCY: Farm Service Agency, USDA. SUMMARY: The Farm Service Agency
(FSA)is issuing a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 with respect to the implementation of the following Disaster Assistance Programs:
(1)Hurricane Indemnity Program,
(2)Feed Indemnity Program,
(3)Livestock Indemnity Program,
(4)Tree Indemnity Program, and
(5)Aquaculture Grant Program as well as
(6)the 2006 Livestock Assistance Grant Program. DATES: This action is effective November 13, 2006. ADDRESSES: The Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment and FONSI may be reviewed at *http://www.fsa.usda.gov/dafp/cepd/epb/assessments.htm* . Written comments should be directed to Mike Linsenbigler, USDA/FSA/CEPD/Stop 0513, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250-0513. Electronic comments may be submitted to *Mike.Linsenbigler@wdc.usda.gov* . Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audio tape, etc.) should contact the USDA Target Center at
(202)720-2600 (voice and TDD). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FSA prepared a Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment for disaster assistance programs supporting production loss and damage caused by damaging weather that occurred between 2005 and 2006. Consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321, *et seq.* ) (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ)Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and FSA's policy and procedures (7 CFR part 799), FSA is issuing a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) with respect to the implementation of the Proposed Action under consideration here. These actions involve 2005-2006 disaster assistance programs that solely transfer funds to offset production and disaster related losses with no site-specific or ground-disturbing actions occurring as an immediate result of implementing these programs. These programs include the following Disaster Assistance Programs:
(1)Hurricane Indemnity Program,
(2)Feed Indemnity Program,
(3)Livestock Indemnity Program,
(4)Tree Indemnity Program,
(5)Aquaculture Grant Program, and
(6)the 2006 Livestock Assistance Grant Program. Because normal agricultural related production was hindered by the widespread and significant destruction caused by the 2005 hurricanes and the severe droughts occurring from March 7, 2006, to August 31, 2006, the Secretary is responding by utilizing the equivalent of 30 percent of annual customs revenues available under Section 32 to restore purchasing power to affected eligible producers. Current disaster programs operated by USDA and other Federal and State agencies do not fully cover the types of loss and destruction experienced by a majority of producers within the States affected by these hurricanes and drought. Without the immediate financial assistance provided by these programs, producers would face delays and experience additional financial hardships in their efforts to return their farming or livestock operations to pre-disaster or pre-drought levels. Under the Proposed Action Alternative, FSA would disburse up to $300 million either through direct payments to eligible producers or through grants administered by State agencies for the grant programs. In making direct payments, FSA does not require that payments be used for specific purposes. These programs solely provide payments to eligible producers for weather-related losses. The direct-payment programs are based on the producers documenting the type and amount of the weather-related loss. *Determination:* In consideration of the analysis documented in the Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment and the reasons outlined in this FONSI, the preferred alternative would not constitute a *major* State or Federal action that would significantly affect the human environment. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act regulations at 40 CFR part 1502.4, “Major Federal actions requiring the preparation of Environmental Impact Statements,” and 7 CFR Part 799, “Environmental Quality and Related Environmental Concerns—Compliance with NEPA implementing the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality,” and 40 CFR parts 1500-1508, I find that neither the proposed action nor any of the alternatives analyzed constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Therefore, no environmental impact statement will be prepared. Signed in Washington DC on October 2, 2006. Glen L. Keppy, Acting Administrator, Farm Service Agency. [FR Doc. E6-16734 Filed 10-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-05-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Notice of New Fees; Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (Title VIII, Pub. L. 108-447) AGENCY: Chugach National Forest, USDA Forest Service. ACTION: Notice of new fees. SUMMARY: The Chugach National Forest will begin charging fees for a group campsite, cabins, individual campsites, and a backcountry permit for the Whistle Stop project area. Fees for other group campsites, cabins, and individual campsites on the Chugach National Forest have shown that the public values the availability of these facilities. In addition, market research conducted for the Whistle Stop project shows that people understand the need for backcountry permits given the remote nature of the area. Fees will be commensurate with the benefits and services provided. Funds received from the fees will be used for the continued operation and maintenance of the facilities and enhanced services of the area. DATES: Backcountry Permits will be available spring 2007 for the 2007 Whistle Stop season. The group campsite, individual campsites, and cabins are expected to be available in 2008. ADDRESSES: Forest Supervisor, Chugach National Forest, 3301 C Street, Anchorage, AK 9503. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adam McClory, Whistle Stop Project Manager, 907-754-2352. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Recreation Lands Enhancement Act (Title VII, Public Law 108-447) directed the Secretary of Agriculture to publish a six month advance notice in the **Federal Register** whenever new recreation fee areas are established. The Whistle Stop project is a partnership between the Forest Service and Alaska Railroad that will provide additional recreation opportunities using alternative transportation. This new service will allow the opportunity for visitors to access National Forest lands which were previously inaccessible to the majority of forest visitors. Market research demonstrates a demand for these sorts of recreation opportunities on the Kenai Peninsula. The Forest Service has identified a goal of achieving cost recovery through a combination of revenue sharing with the Alaska Railroad; fees from public-use cabin rentals and campsites; and fees obtained through backcountry permits. Implementation of backcountry permits, as described in the Record of Decision, will provide the Forest Service with the ability to accurately track recreation use and ensure that use levels and numbers of encounters are not exceeding thresholds established in the Forest Plan and Recreation Opportunity Spectrum
(ROS)guidelines. Chugach National Forest goals include maintaining a backcountry social experience and protecting the natural and cultural resources throughout the area. Backcountry permits will be required for visitors utilizing the enhanced amenities provided through the Whistle Stop Project area. Amenities include a developed trail system, backcountry campsites, interpretive materials, and Whistle Stop stations that will include a shelter, restroom facilities and bear-proof food storage containers. Issuance of the backcountry permit will allow for better public safety and result in improved visitor education and information about proper camping techniques, fir prevention, safety in bear country, and sanitation. Members of the public are welcome to comment. Dated: October 4, 2006. Joe Meade, Chugach National Forest Supervisor. [FR Doc. 06-8591 Filed 10-10-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 12
Traces to 12 documents
U.S. Code
statutes-at-large
23 references not yet in our index
- 7 CFR 318.13
- 7 CFR 305
- 7 CFR 3015
- 7 CFR 318
- 7 USC 7701-7772
- 7 CFR 2.22
- 26 CFR 300
- Pub. L. 92-463
- 5 USC 561-570
- 40 CFR 52
- 40 CFR 174
- 49 CFR 211
- 44 USC 3501-3520
- 49 CFR 1.49
- 50 CFR 17
- 50 CFR 424
- 50 CFR 17.11
- Pub. L. 104-13
- 7 CFR 225.9
- 7 CFR 1924
- 7 CFR 799
- 40 CFR 1502.4
- Pub. L. 108-447
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Proposed rule
Cite7 CFR 318.13
Cite7 CFR 305
Cite7 CFR 3015
Cites 35 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources